Recruitment processes must prioritize merit over district preferences, particularly when unfilled vacancies exist, ensuring compliance with constitutional guarantees of equality in public employment.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash

1. This Intra-Court Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.10791 of 2022, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the present Respondent was disposed of with a direction to the State-Appellants to consider her case for engagement as Sikshya Sahayak or any equivalent post against the existing vacancy, taking into account the preference indicated by her in the application and to issue appointment order in her favour in the district wherein she is found eligible.

2. The fact matrix of the case, in brief, is that the State Government made a resolution dated 26.12.2016 laying down the guidelines for engagement of Sikshya Sahayaks and pursuant thereto recruitment was undertaken for filling up 14,087 posts across various districts in the State. The Respondent, possessing +3 Arts with B.Ed. qualification, applied online under the SEBC category and while submitting her application exercised options for 22 districts in order of preference, mentioning Bolangir as her first preference and Malkangiri as the last. She was thereafter called for verification of original certificates on 01.02.2018 and after such verification a list of eligible candidates was published wherein her name appeared at Sl. No.472. However, in the selection process she could not come within the zone of consideration as she had secured 169.733 marks, which was below the prescribed cut-off marks for the SEBC (Women) category. The records indicate that the cut-off marks in the first round stood at 196.333 and in the subsequent round at 204.411 for the relevant category and districts. Consequently, despite the consideration of district preferences during the rounds of selection, the Respondent was not selected. Thereafter, the Respondent approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.9290 of 2021 seeking consideration of her representation, which was disposed of directing the State authorities to examine her claim. Pursuant thereto, the State Government, by order dated 07.03.2022, rejected the claim of the Respondent. Assailing the said rejection order, the Respondent again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.10791 of 2022, which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 26.04.2024 with the direction as noted hereinbefore. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the State-Appellants have preferred the present intra-court appeal.

3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants-State contended that the learned Single Judge erred in directing consideration of the Respondent for engagement as Sikshya Sahayak against the existing vacancies. It was submitted that the Respondent had participated in the recruitment process pursuant to the guidelines and advertisement dated 26.12.2016 and was duly considered along with other candidates. However, she secured only 169.733 marks, which was below the cut-off marks prescribed for the SEBC (W) category, the same being 196.333 in the first round and 204.411 in the subsequent round of selection. It was further contended that the Respondent had exercised district preferences and the authorities had undertaken the selection process by considering such preferences in order of merit; nevertheless, as she did not secure marks sufficient to fall within the zone of selection, she could not be appointed. Learned AGA further submitted that the recruitment process pursuant to the 2016 advertisement had already been concluded long ago and the unfilled vacancies, if any, had been carried forward to subsequent recruitment processes. Therefore, the direction issued by the learned