ORDER

26.07.2024 01. 1. This matter is taken up through virtual mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

3. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner directing the opposite parties to cancel the selection of opposite party No.5 and instead to select her as MBK for Kadala GPLF, Kadala GP under Hindol Block in the district of Dhenkanal on the grounds stated therein.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had represented the authority concerned pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7361 of 2024 but without Page 2 of 3 hearing and proper scrutiny, the impugned order is passed by opposite party No.3. It is submitted that the petitioner is more meritorious and should have been engaged instead of opposite party No.5, inasmuch as, the latter scored less mark and secured Second Division and hence, she could not have been allowed 10 marks in +2.

While claiming so, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure-6, such as, the information obtained through RTI Act.

5. The dispute is over the engagement of opposite party No.5 to the alleged post with a plea that though she had a Second Division in +2 was granted 10 marks as a weightage of 5 marks is allowed for scoring 33% and above but less than 60% and 10 marks for more than 60%.

6. Mr. Tripathy, learned AGA for the State submits that it such is the case of the petitioner which is with reference to Annexure-6, a fresh calculation may be necessary.

7. Having regard to the facts pleaded on record and submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and since from Annexure-6, it is made to appear that opposite party No.5 secured Second Division in +2 but allowed 10 marks as revealed from the calculation table in Annexure-7, the Court is of the view that a fresh scrutiny is required as against the claim of the petitioner that she has more marks and hence, eligible for the post of MBK at the concerned G.P. In other words, under the circumstances and subject matter in dispute and eligibility of the petitioner and opposite party No.5 with regard to the engagement at G.P. as against the post applied for, opposite party No.3 needs to have a relook for a fresh decision thereon within a stipulated period notwithstanding consideration of the earlier representation filed from the side of the petitioner and disposed of.

8. Hence, it is ordered.

9. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.3 to go for a fresh scrutiny vis-à-vis selection process involving opposite party No.5 and her selection opposed and challenged by the petitioner on the grounds stated and after providing an opportunity of hearing to both of them and keeping in view the rules applicable, to pass a final order at the earliest preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that such decision by opposite party No.3 shall not be influenced by any such findings rendered earlier while disposing of the representation (Annexure-7), so to say, to independently apply his judicial mind and to take a decision within the above stipulated period. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order under Annexure-7 is hereby set aside.

10. A certified copy of the order be issued as per rules.

kabita (R.K.Pattanaik) Judge