JUDGMENT

R.N. BISWAL, J. — The case of the writ petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-3 dated 28.9.2006 in the daily English Newspaper, he offered his candidature for the post of Multi purpose Assistance (Gram Rojgar Sevak) in respect of Solabandh Gram Panchayat under Patnagarh Block. As per the advertisement, the minimum qualification for the said post was 10+2 passed. It was further stated therein that the applicants of Commerce stream and applicants with computer proficiency of ‘O’ level with use of Oriya language in computer would be preferred. The petitioner has passed +2 Arts in C.H.S.E. Examination in the year 2002 having secured 46.89 marks. He completed 12 months’ course in Diploma in Computer Application. But instead of select¬ing him one Bidyadhar Majhi, who was ineligible for the post, was selected.

2. Being aggrieved with the said selection, petitioner made a representation to the Project Director D.R.D.A., Bolangir (Opposite party No.3), but it was not attended. So, he filed W.P.(C) No.16809 of 2006 before this Court, which was disposed of on 27.1.2007 with direction to finalize the representation within one month from the date of receipt of that order. Instead of considering the case of petitioner, opposite party No.3 gave appointment to Sarat Kumar Das (opposite party No.5), under Annexure-1 though he had no requisite qualification for the post. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying to quash Annexure-1 and to direct the opp.parties to recommend his name for the post of Gram Rogzar Sevak in respect of Solabandh Grama panchayat.

3. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.5 contended that opposite party No.5 passed Upasastri from Sri Jagannath Sanskrit Viswa Vidyalaya, Puri which is equivalent to +2. He secured 51.1. percentage of mark therein. None of the other applicants could secure that much of marks. Opposite party No.3 by his letter dated 14.11.2006 made it clear that ‘O’ level certificate issued by Govt. of India would be considered and no other certificates like D.C.A. and P.G.D.C.A. Since none of the candidates could produce ‘O’ level certificate being issued by the Govt. of India, qualification with regard to computer was not taken into consideration in favour of any of them. Opposite party No.5 having secured the highest mark in +2 level was rightly selected.

4. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the advertisement, the minimum qualifica¬tion for the post was 10+2. There was nothing to show that candi¬date having equivalent qualification of 10+2 would be also eligi¬ble to the post of Gram Rojagar Sevak. He further submitted that as per the advertisement the last date of submission of applica¬tion was 28.10.2006. At that time the Equivalence Committee had not declared Upasastri as equivalent to 10+2 pass. Annexure D/5, shows that opposite party No.5 passed Upasastri in the month of August 2001 from Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Viswa Vidyalaya. But, there is nothing to indicate that the Equivalence Committee de¬clared Upasastri equivalent to 10+2 pass prior to 28.10.2006.. So, Opposite party No.5 cannot be said to have passed 10+2 or any equivalent examination thereof till 28.10.2006, and, as such, he was not eligible for the post at all.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.5 submitted that the Equivalence Committee vide notification dated 3.5.1996 declared Acharya as equivalent to M.A. in Sanskrit. Opposite party No.5 passed Acharya in the year 2006 and was placed in 1st class. M.A. in Sanskrit being much higher than 10+2, his appointment cannot be declared illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that opposite party No.5 also under¬went 12 month’s course in specified curriculum with Grade B+2 and passed PGDCA from Patnagarh and was issued with a certificate in that respect under Annexure-B/5. If the qualification of the petitioner in respect of computer application is ac