IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18646 of 2017 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Lizarani Samantaray …. Petitioner -versus-

Collector, Ganjam and Others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Petitioner - Mr. Rabindra Kumar Patnaik, Advocate.

For Opposite Parties - Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :16.01.2026 :: Date of Judgment :22.01.2026 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the Collector, Ganjam (O.P. No.1) to conduct an enquiry into the grievances of the petitioner as per Annexure-5 and to pass an appropriate order after giving personal hearing to the petitioner and others regarding the selection of “Jogana Sahayak” of Genja G.P.

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SC for the State.

3. As per the case of the petitioner, according to the Advertisement made by the O.P. No.3 (Block Development Officer, Surada Block in the district of Ganjam), the petitioner along with others of Genja G.P. applied for “Jogana Sahayak” of Genja G.P. As per the Advt. (Annexure-1), the last date of submission of Application Form before the B.D.O., Surada Block (O.P. No.3) was 05.02.2016 and accordingly, the petitioner submitted her Application Form before the Office of O.P. No.3 (B.D.O., Surada Block) on 05.02.2016. An acknowledgment receipt vide Annexure-2 was issued in favour of the petitioner by the O.P. No.3 on dated 05.02.2016 regarding the submission of Application Form by the petitioner.

Thereafter, the O.P. No.3 (B.D.O., Surada Block) sat over the matter for eight months, but suddenly sent a panel list of the selected Jogana Sahayak of different G.Ps including Genja G.P. of Surada Block to the O.P. No.2 (Sub-Collector, Bhanjanagar) on dated 07.10.2016. The O.P. No.2 approved the said selected panel list of Jogana Sahayak of all G.Ps of Surada Block including Genja G.P. on dated 22.10.2016 without displaying the said panel list in the notice board.

When, the petitioner came to know that, the O.P. No.4 has been selected illegally as Jogana Sahayak of Genja G.P., then she (petitioner) applied on dated 05.11.2016 under the R.T.I. Act for supplying information in respect of the selection list of Jogana Sahayak of Genja G.P., then the O.P. No.3 did not supply the said information in time. For which, she (petitioner) preferred an appeal vide F.A. No.2 of 2017. Then, the Authority supplied information to her. After verification of panel list, it was found that, in total 5 candidates for post of Jogana Sahayak of Genja G.P. had applied and in Remarks Category, it was stated that, the petitioner had submitted an application for Jogana Sahayak, which was received on dated 06.02.2016 after completion of the cutoff date for receiving the same.

As the petitioner had submitted her application in due time i.e. on

05.02.2016 and she had secured highest marks among the other candidates, those had applied for the same, but only in order to accommodate the O.P. No.4, the O.P. No.3 had manipulated the date of receipt of her application as 06.02.2016 instead of 05.02.2016.

Therefore, she (petitioner) submitted a detailed representation before the O.P. No.1 ventilating her aforesaid grievances and the O.P. No.1 directed O.P. No.3 to conduct an enquiry about the same. Thereafter, on dated 13.04.2017, the O.P. No.3 submitted a report to the O.P. No.1 stating that, the cutoff date of submission of the application was 05.02.2016, but she (petitioner) had submitted her application on 06.02.2016. For which, her application was not taken for consideration into the selection process. The aforesaid enquiry report of the O.P. No.3 is neither legal nor correct. Because, she (petitioner) had submitted her Application Form in due time on 05.02.2016, for which, s