ORDER

13.03.2024 16. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Jena, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp.

Parties.

3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging order dtd.31.07.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-7. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment to the post of TGT Science (PCM) was rejected.

4. It is contended that pursuant to the notice issued by Opp. Party No. 2 on 23.12.2021 under Annexure-1 for recruitment to the post of Initial Appointee Teacher in Govt. Secondary Schools of the State of Odisha, 2021-22, Petitioner made her application as against the post of TGT Science (PCM). It is contended that Petitioner in terms of the eligibility prescribed vide Para 5 of the notice, made her application and in the examination so conducted, Petitioner // 2 // secured 99.7134% of mark as reflected in Annexure-5. It is contended that even though Petitioner has secured 99.7134% of mark, but she was not selected as she belongs to OBC Category and she made her application as a General Category candidate.

4.1. It is contended that in the notice issued under Annexure-1, no post was reserved as against the post of TGT Science (PCM) in OBC Category and even though Petitioner belongs to OBC Category, but since there was no vacancy advertised as against the said category, Petitioner made her application as a General Category candidate and her application was not only entertained but also she was allowed to participate in the selection process.

However, on the ground that the Petitioner belongs to OBC Category and she has made her application as a General Category candidate, when her candidature was rejected at the time of verification of documents, he initially approached Opp. Party No. 3 by making an appropriate application for reconsideration of her claim on 21.05.2022 under Annexure-6.

4.2. It is contended that when no action was taken by Opp. Party No. 3 to the application submitted under Annexure-6, Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.13444 of 2022. This Court vide order dtd.27.05.2022 while disposing the writ petition, directed Opp. Party No. 3 to take a decision on the claim made by the Petitioner in his representation under Annexure-6. Pursuant to the said order claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.31.07.2022 under Annexure-7.

4.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since in terms of the notice issued under Annexure-1, Petitioner does have the requisite qualification and other eligibility criteria as required and // 3 // she having secured 99.7134% of mark, her candidature could not have been rejected on the ground that she belongs to OBC Category and she cannot make her application as a General Category candidates. It is also contended that in the notice issued under Annexure-1 as against the post of TGT (PCM), since no vacancy was there for OBC Category, she made her application as a General Category candidate.

4.4. It is also contended that there is no bar in that regard for her participation as a General Category candidate when no vacancy was indicated for OBC Category. But on the face of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition, Opp. Party No. 3 by taking a different plea that since Petitioner in her OSSTET Examination had secured 87 mark and candidate selected in General Category has secured 90 mark in the OSSTET Examination-2018, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of appointment.

4.5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in the notice issued under Annexure-1, there was no such stipulation to consider the mark secured in the OSSTET Examination as an eligible criteria. Passing of OSSTET is an additional requirment s