Once a candidate's candidature is accepted, the authorities cannot later question their entitlement to be considered for engagement.

JUDGMENT

Sashikanta Mishra, J. - The Petitioner has filed the present application seeking the following relief:-

'The Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously be pleased to admit the Writ Petition, call for the record and after hearing the parties be pleased to quash the corrigendum to the merit list dated 19th March, 2016 prepared for Physically Handicapped category in respect of the Petitioner under Annexure-8 and the Opposite Parties be directed to consider the candidature of the Petitioner and engagement order be issued to the Petitioner on the basis of the Physically Handicapped certificate submitted by the Petitioner at the time of engagement which was issued in favour of the Petitioner on 11th June, 2015;

And may pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.'

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was appointed as a TGT (CBZ) Contract Teacher under Physically Handicapped (PH) category on 11th June, 2015 pursuant to an advertisement issued on 27th October, 2014 followed by a corrigendum dated 6th January, 2015. The Petitioner submitted a disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of Balasore indicating 45% disability in hearing. The Petitioner was selected for the District of Cuttack though he had given Ganjam as his first preference. He was called upon to execute an agreement on 9th June, 2015 and thereafter engagement order being issued, he joined in the post on 12th June, 2015 by submitting his joining report. Subsequently the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, School and Mass Education Department, State of Odisha (Opposite Party No.1) issued a letter to all the District Education Officers directing them to disengage all the Contract Teachers who were appointed on or after 11th June, 2015 and in the process, the Petitioner was disengaged. On 19th March, 2016 the Opposite Party-authorities drew a corrigendum to the select list of candidates of PH category by deleting the name of the Petitioner. It is stated that the Petitioner's name was deleted in the subsequent merit list on the ground that he had less than 20% disability which was placed on a report of the Appellate Medical Board which was held much after the selection of the applicant in the year 2015. It is further claimed by the Petitioner that even otherwise he had secured 202.49% of mark whereas the last selected candidate in the select list prepared for the whole State in respect of TGT( CBZ) namely, Bibasta Kumar Meher had secured 137.86% mark. Thus, challenging the action of the authorities in disengaging him, the Petitioner prays for quashment of the corrigendum to the merit list dated 19th March, 2016 and for a direction to consider his candidature by issuing engagement order.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the District Education Officer, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.4) stating that as per the documents submitted by the Petitioner and on verification of documents, it was found that the PH certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner was in the year 2009 for which further examination was required. On such examination being held it was seen that his audiometric finding is less than 45% and also gradually improved for which he is not entitled for consideration under PH category as per norms of the Government. It is also stated that while issuing engagement order to the Petitioner, it was stipulated that if the documents submitted are fake/forged/invalid or not acceptable as per Government rules, the engagement would be cancelled and it is also the duty of the authorities to verify the genuineness and authenticity of the documents at any moment when doubt arises. It is also stated that not only the Petitioner but several other candidates were also disengaged. As regards the PH certificate submitted by the Petitioner, it is stated that the same was issued in the year 2009 and, therefore, there are doubts regarding its propriety/legality. On further