IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of 'clean hands' in legal proceedings requires that a party must not suppress material facts when seeking relief, and the absence of required documentation can justify the rejection of an application.

JUDGMENT

B.R. Sarangi, ACJ.

The appellant has filed this writ appeal seeking to quash the order dated 03.11.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.12588 of 2019, by which the learned Single Judge has directed the Sub-Collector, Nuapada to appoint respondent no.6 as Jogana Sahayak in respect of Kirkita Gram Panchayat within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order.

2. The factual matrix leading to filing of this writ appeal, in brief, is that pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.04.2015 issued by respondent no.1 for the post of Jogana Sahayak, on contractual basis, in respect of Kirkita Gram Panchayat under Khariar Panchayat Samiti in the district of Nuapada, the appellant submitted his application form along with all the required documents, including the residential certificate, which was acknowledged by the authority. But, on scrutiny of the applications, the appellant's application was rejected on the ground 'Copy of Residential Certificate not submitted', as mentioned in the remark column of the list of applicants whose applications are rejected due to over age, under age and non-submission of documents, as has been placed in the proceedings of the District Level Selection Committee Meeting held on 30.09.2015 for selection of Jogan Sahayak in the Office Chamber of Civil Supplies, Nuapada.

3. Mr. S.K. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that since the application form submitted by the appellant, which contained the residential certificate, was accepted by the respondent- authority and at no point of time the appellant was informed/indicated that his application form was defective due to non-submission of residential certificate, subsequent rejection thereof cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further contended that once the application form of the appellant was acknowledged to be in order, the same could not have been rejected subsequently on the ground of non- availability of the residential certificate. It is further contended that residential certificate of the appellant was removed by one Nanda Kishore Tandi, the then Head Clerk in the office of the Civil Supplies Officer (CSO), Nuapada in order to accommodate his own candidate-respondent no.6. Without considering the very vital aspect of the matter, learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 03.11.2023 in W.P.(C) No.12588 of 2019. Therefore, the appellant seeks for interference of this Court.

4. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State- respondents vehemently contended that the appellant has tried to make out a new case by preferring appeal. Merely because the appellant's application form was received/acknowledged, that does not indicate that he had submitted residential certificate at the time of submission of application form. If the application form was received by the respondent-authority by giving acknowledgement, no inference can be drawn that the appellant had submitted residential certificate, as has been stated in the memo of appeal. Rather, on receipt of the applications, when scrutiny was made, it was found that the application form submitted by the appellant was incomplete one. As such, the allegation made, that one Nanda Kishore Tandi, the then Head Clerk of the office of the CSO, Nuapada has removed the residential certificate, is based on surmises and conjecture. It is also contended that the said Nanda Kishore Tandi was not made as a party to the writ petition. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that due to removal of residential certificate from the application form the appellant was not considered for selection, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further contended that whether the said Nanda Kishore Tandi, the then Head Clerk in the office of the CSO, Nuapada has removed the residential certificate or not, is also a disputed question of fact, which cannot be resolved under writ jurisdiction in exercise of the power under