The empanelment in the select list does not confer an automatic right to appointment, but candidates have a right to be considered for appointment under the reserved quota meant for SEBC (W) category.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. Sarangi, J.

The State of Odisha and its functionaries have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 2728 of 2013, by which the tribunal has directed them to call the applicant-opposite party for certificate/ documents verification and, if she is otherwise found eligible and suitable, to give her appointment against unfilled post in SEBC category, and that in event she is appointed, to count her appointment w.e.f. the date the other persons have been appointed, maintaining her seniority below them, and to extend her the notional financial benefits.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that an advertisement was issued for the post of contract teacher in TGT (CBZ), pursuant to which opposite party no.1 submitted her application under SEBC (W) category. Though her position in the merit list was at sl. no. 39 and at sl. no. 1 in SEBC category, yet she was not called for the certificate verification. As such benefit was illegally denied to her, she approached the tribunal.

2.1 To the stand taken by opposite party no.1 before the tribunal, a counter affidavit was filed by the present petitioners, stating inter alia that all total 64 posts of contract teacher in the discipline of TGT (CBZ were advertised, out of which 8 posts were meant for SEBC including one SEBC (W). As per the merit list prepared, in SEBC category 8 candidates were placed above opposite party no.1, for which she could not be selected. The last candidate in SEBC category had secured 197.254% of marks, whereas opposite party no.1 had secured 196.157% of marks. In the 1st phase of selection, out of 8 SEBC candidates, 4 joined and in the second phase 4 candidates were selected where the name of opposite party no.1 did not find place, as she had secured less mark than the last candidate selected. As such, the name of opposite party no.1 did not come within the zone of consideration, for which her grievance merits no consideration.

2.2 To the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners, a rejoinder affidavit was filed by opposite party no.1 before the tribunal stating inter alia that had the reservation policy been followed properly, then two posts would have been reserved for SEBC (W) category; which is 33.1/3% of the total vacancies, and in such situation opposite party no.1 should have been selected. As per the merit list prepared, 7(seven) candidates were selected who were at Sl. Nos. 5, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18 and 31 and, as such, the 8th post was kept vacant. Since no woman candidate was selected, opposite party no.1 being the next in the select list, ought to have been selected for the said post. One Subash Chandra Sahu, whose position in the merit list was at sl. no.44, was selected, though he had secured 194.555% of marks. However, he was shown to have secured 197.555% of marks, which was by way of manipulation/ tampering of his mark, therefore selection of Subash Chandra Sahu was illegal. When only seven SEBC candidates were selected, the claim of opposite party no.1 for selection could not have been denied. As opposite party no.1 was claiming for selection against reserved vacancy for women category under SEBC quota, non-consideration of the case of opposite party no.1 was illegal, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law.

2.3 The tribunal, after due adjudication, passed the following order:-

“Thus, as admittedly one post in SEBC category is still available, the right is accrued to the applicant for consideration of her candidature against the said post and accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to consider to call the applicant for certificate/ documents verification and if she is otherwise found eligible and suitable for appointment, she may be given appointment against the unfilled up post in SEBC category. While considering the claim of the applicant, persons who have secured more marks than the applicant