Preference in public service selection cannot override established merit, as legal precedent dictates that meritorious candidates must be prioritized irrespective of residency criteria.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. S.P. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties.

2. The Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Pharmacist as per the advertisement dated 20.7.2015 (Annexure-1) issued by the office of the Chief District Medical Officer, Sundargarh. The Petitioner took part in the selection process and secured 1566 marks as per the selection list prepared under Annexure-5. Opposite Parties 4, 5 & 6, the private Opposite Parties, who also participated in the selection process, secured 1545, 1361 and 1526 marks respectively in the same selection process under Annexure-5. The Petitioner as well as Opposite Parties 4, 5 & 6 all belong to UR(W) category. The private Opposite Parties though secured less marks in the selection process, but given appointment except the Petitioner. The candidature of the said Opposite Parties were preferred over the candidature of the Petitioner for the reason that, those Opposite Parties belong to Sundargarh district whereas the Petitioner belong to Balasore district.

3. It needs to mention here that, as per the advertisement under Annexure-1, the condition prescribed as per clause-2 of the selection procedure that, the candidate of Sundargarh district will be given preference, and in case of non-availability of required numbers of candidates of Sundargarh district, the cases of candidates belonging to other districts will be considered.

4. The State authorities have filed their counter reiterating their stand that, Opposite Parties 4, 5 & 6, who belong to UR(W) category,have been given appointment on the basis of preference given over the Petitioner as they all belong to Sundargarh district and the Petitioner is a non-resident of Sundargarh district. This is the main subject matter of issue concerned in present writ petition.

5. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, the Petitioner is an ordinary resident of Sundargarh district though her native belongs to Balasore district as per the Residential Certificate submitted by her in the application form. The Opposite Parties never disputed the Residential Certificate of the Petitioner regarding her ordinary residence in Sundargarh district where her husband was serving. Bereft of this, it is also submitted by Mr. Das that, the preference comes next to the merit and the candidates having less merit in the selection process cannot be preferred over the candidate having higher merit.

6. Mr. S.P. Panda, learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that, the authorities have clearly mentioned in the advertisement regarding choice of preference which is neither challenged nor disputed by the Petitioner and so, by implementing said preferential clause mentioned in the advertisement, which remain unchallenged, the private Opposite Parties have been preferred for selection and appointment over thePetitioner since she is not a resident of Sundargarh district. He further submits that, the posts advertised meant for the Office of CDMO in Sundargarh district and therefore keeping such preferential clause cannot be said illegal.

7. The selection list as per Annexure-5 where the Petitioner had got more marks than Opposite Parties 4, 5 & 6 is not disputed. The Residential Certificate of the Petitioner stating she is an ordinary resident in the district of Sundargarh was also not questioned by the appointing authority. Thus it is found admitted that, the Petitioner, who is an ordinary resident of Sundargarh district, has secured much more marks in merit than those private Opposite Parties. Now it is to be seen whether by p