IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 9243 of 2018

(An application Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

---------------

AFR

Chandan Pradhan

...… Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Odisha & others

...…. Opp.Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

_______________________________________________________

For Petitioner

:

M/s. Satyabrata Mohanty,

S.S. Mohapatra, A.K. Jena,

S.K. Das, P.K. Das & P. Sinha,

Advocates

For Opp.Parties :

Mr. H.K. Panigrahi,

Addl. Standing Counsel.

Mr. P.K. Panda,

Standing Counsel

for S & M.E. Department.

_______________________________________________________

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

JUDGMENT

29^th September, 2022

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The Government in School and Mass Education

Department issued a Resolution dated 26^th December, 2016

laying down guidelines for engagement of Sikshya Sahayaks.

On the same day, an advertisement was issued inviting

applications from eligible candidates for engagement against

14087 posts of Sikshya Sahayaks in different districts. The

last date of submission of application was 9th December,

2017. The Petitioner submitted his application citing his

first preference District as Angul and the second as

Kalahandi. The Petitioner was selected for appointment in

the district of Kalahandi, but by letter dated 3^rd May, 2018

issued by the District Project Coordinator, Sarva Sikshya

Abhiyan (D.P.C. SSA), Kalahandi (Opposite Party No.4), the

State Project Director, OPEPA was intimated that the

documents of the Petitioner were verified at the district level

and it was found that he could not produce Identity Card

issued by Director of Sports which is essentially required to

claim reservation under the sports category as per

Resolution No.24808/Gen dated 18^th November, 1985 of

G.A. Department. Hence, his candidature was rejected. The

Petitioner claims that he had duly participated in the

National Level Competitions for which valid certificates were

issued by the Organizers, which was duly countersigned by

the concerned authority and therefore, rejection of his

candidature is entirely illegal. On such basis, the Petitioner

has approached this Court seeking the following relief:-

“It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may be graciously pleased to admit the writ

application, issue Rule Nisi by calling upon the

Opp.Party as to why the order of rejection under

Annexure-4 dated 3.5.2018 will not be quashed and

the Petitioner will be given appointment as Sikshya

Sahayak in the interest of justice.

And pass necessary order/orders as Lordships’

deem fit and proper for the interest of justice.”

2.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of

Opposite Party No.4 in which it is stated that the Petitioner

had applied under sports category as provided under the

Resolution dated 18^th November, 1985. As per clause-4 of

the said Resolution, recognized Associations/Federations,

Organizing Bodies may issue Sports Certificates to the

candidates who participated or represented the State in the

open national events and championships. Further, the

Director of Sports shall issue Identity Card to the deserving

sportsmen on the basis of such certificates. As per

Annexure-5, the sportsmen are required to produce the

Identity Card at the time of their appointment against the

post reserved. The Petitioner had produced an Identity Card

issued by the National School Games showing his

participation in 54^th National School Games, 2008 at Sagar

(M.P) for participating in Throw Ball and Kho-Kho

Championship from 12^th to 17^th October, 2008, but the

same is not an Identity Card issued by the Director of

Sports as required under Resolution dated 18^th November,

1985. Accordingly, his candidature was rejected.

3.

The Petitioner filed a rejoinder to the counter filed

by Opp