JUDGMENT

A. K. GANGULY, C.J. — These three writ petitions have been filed with a prayer for declaring Clause 4.1 of the advertisement which is under Annexure-6 to W.P.(C) No. 14981 and 14133 of 2006 and Annexure-3 to W.P. (C) No. 1855 of 2007 as illegal, discriminatory and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners in these writ petitions claim that they have requisite qualification and eligibility for being appointed in the post of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak and they intend to make application for such posts. But, in view of the impugned Clause 4.1 in the advertise¬ment, which seeks to confine such appointment only to the residents of the block in question in which the appointment will take place, they cannot make the application.

2. The advertisement in question is in Oriya language, but the same has been translated into English. The relevant clause which is impugned in these writ petitions is as follows :

“4.1 For engagement of block-unit wise Sikshya Sahayak, there will be a selection committee under the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Collector under the Zilla Parishad. In the Committee the concerned Inspector of Schools, District Inspector of Schools, District Welfare Officer, District Employment Officer, District Project Co-ordinator (S.S.A.) will be the members of the Committee. The concerned District Project Co-ordinator/(SSA) will be the convenor of the Committee.”

The said Clause 4.1 came into existence by virtue of the Resolution which was initially dated 31.5.2006, but the same was amended by corrigendum dated 12.10.2006. By the said corrigendum the words “block unit” have been substituted in place of the words “education district”. The expression “block unit” means the Panchayati Raj Block as defined by the Panchayati Raj Department and includes the Urban Local Bodies situated in the same Block headquarters or adjourning to the same block headquarters.

3. Explaining such restriction in the advertisement and corrigendum, in the counter affidavit filed by the State, it has been stated that Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaks will be engaged Unit-wise within the block to which they belong. The so called justification for such stipulation in the matter of engagement is that the Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaks will remain accountable to Panchayati Raj institutions and Village Education Committee, who will control, certify, monitor and supervise the functioning of the school. It has been further stated that if the persons who are staying at a distance from their native village are engaged that will give rise to absenteeism and poor quality of education.

4. Learned counsel, for the petitioners has submitted that such stipulation in the advertisement is wholly violative of the provisions contained in Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and urged that the Constitution gives fundamental right to every citizen to equal opportunity in the matter of employment or appointment under the State. It has further been asserted that no citizen shall be subjected to any discrimination on the various grounds and one of such ground is the place of residence. In the instant case, the discrimination on the ground of residence which has been prohib¬ited in the Constitution is being introduced at the instance of the State.

5. In support of his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on several judgments. The first decision on which reliance is placed was delivered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V.S.Narasimha Rao and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in AIR 1970 SC 422. In that judgment the learned Judges held that it is only the Parliament which can make the law in a special case under Clause (3) of Article 16 prescribing any requirement as to residence within a State or Union Territory p