RATNAMANJARI SWAIN vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 42435 of 2023
CNR No. ODHC011045332023
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
………………
Ratnamanjari Swain …. Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. J. Biswal , Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.P. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 05.11.2026 & Date of Judgment:05.11.2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J .
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. J. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and
Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp.
Parties.
// 2 //
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following
prayer:-
“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be
graciously pleased to:-
i) Admit the writ application.
ii) Call for the record.
iii) Issue Rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show
cause as to why the impugned order of rejection dated 23.03.2023
under Annexure:5 and 27.04.2023 under Annexure:8 issued by
the opposite party No.3 shall not be quashed.
iv) If the opposite parties more particularly Opposite Party No. 3
fails to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the rule
absolute by issuing writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
writ/writs, order/orders by quashing the impugned order of
rejection dated 23.03.2023 under Annexure:5 and 27.04.2023
under Annexure:8;
v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/writs
direction/directions directing the opp. Parties more particularly
the Opposite Party No. 3 to accept the candidature of the
petitioner as Constable, GRP, Cuttack and accordingly appoint
her to the said post from the date other Constables were
appointed pursuant advertisement under Annexure:1 with all
financial and consequential service benefits within a stipulated
time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court; to
vi) And/or such pass other order/orders, direction/directions as
this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper for the ends of
justice.
Page 2 of 14
// 3 //
And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound
shall ever pray.”
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that pursuant to
the Advertisement issued by the State Selection Board, Odisha Police on
30.12.2022 under Annexure-1 inviting application to fill up the post of
Constables (Civil) in Odisha Police, Petitioner made the application under
Annexure-2 series.
4.1. It is contended that as provided in the Advertisement so issued under
Annexure-1 with regard to the general eligibility criteria mentioned under
Para 5(f), the candidate must have registered in one of the Employment
Exchanges of the District, covering the district for which he applies for
recruitment, before the date of publication of advertisement for
recruitment.
4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that while
making the application, Petitioner enclosed the registration certificate
issued in her favour so available at Page 37 of the brief. It is contended
that on receipt of the application, Petitioner was allowed to take part the
written test and after coming out successful in the said written test and on
being shortlisted for physical measurement and physical efficiency test so
available under Annexure-3, Petitioner was issued with the admit card
under Annexure-4. Petitioner also appeared in the physical test. But on the
ground that the employment exchange certificate so furnished by the
Petitioner along with her application since has expired its validity in the
month of December, 2021, Petitioner’s candidature was rejected under
Annexure-5 dtd.23.03.2023.
Page 3 of 14
// 4 //
4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
challenging such rejection, Petitioner approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C) No. 9588 of 2023. This Court vide order dtd.03.04.2023 under
Annexure-6 while disposing the writ petition, directed the Chairman, State
Selection Board to take a fresh decision following the decision in the case
of Union of India vs. Pritilata Nanda reported in 2010 (11) SCC 674.
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pritilata Nanda in Para 21 to 23 has
held as follows:-
“ 21. We also agree with the High Court that once the
candidature of the respondent was accepted by the authorities
concerned and she was allowed to participate in the process of
selection i.e. the written test and viva voce, it was not open to
them to turn around and question her entitlement to be considered
for appointment as per her placement in the merit list on the
specious ground that her name had not been sponsored by the
employment exchange. In our considered view, by denying
appointment to the respondent despite her selection and
placement in the merit list, the appellants violated her right to
equality in the matter of employment guaranteed under Article 16
of the Constitution.
22. However, there is a small aberration in the operative part
of the impugned order. While the High Court was fully justified in
directing the appellants to appoint the respondent from the date
persons lower in merit were appointed, but it is not possible to
confirm the direction given for payment of full salary with
retrospective effect. In our view, the High Court should have
directed the appellants to notionally fix the pay of the respondent
with effect from the date the person placed at Sl. No. 12 in the
merit list was appointed and give her all monetary benefits with
effect from that date.
Page 4 of 14
// 5 //
23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, the
operative part of the impugned order is modified in the following
terms:
(1) The competent authority concerned of the South-Eastern
Railway shall, within a period of two weeks from today, issue
order appointing the respondent on a Class III post. The
appointment of the respondent shall be made effective from the
date the person placed at Sl. No. 12 in the merit list was
appointed. The pay of the respondent shall be notionally fixed
with effect from that date and she shall be given actual monetary
benefits with effect from 5-9-2008 i.e. the date specified in the
order passed by the High Court.
(2) The pay of the respondent shall also be fixed in the revised
pay scales introduced from time to time and she be paid arrears
within a period of four months.
(3) The seniority of the respondent among Class III employees
shall be fixed by placing her below the person who was placed at
Sl. No. 10 in the merit list.
(4) If during the intervening period, any person junior to the
respondent has been promoted on the next higher post, then her
candidature shall also be considered for promotion and on being
found suitable, she shall be promoted with effect from the date
any of her junior was promoted and she be given all
consequential benefits.
(5) The General Manager, South-Eastern Railway is directed
to ensure that the respondent is not victimised by being posted in
a remote area.
(6) Since the respondent has been deprived of her rights for
almost 21 years, we direct the appellants to pay her costs of Rs.
3,00,000. The amount of costs shall be paid within two months
from today.
”
4.4. It is contended that in terms of the said order, Petitioner though raised
a grievance before the Chairman, State Selection Board-Opp. Party No. 3
Page 5 of 14
// 6 //
under Annexure-7, but the same was rejected vide the impugned order
dtd.27.04.2023 under Annexure-8, inter alia on the ground that since
Petitioner along with her application, has not submitted a valid
registration certificate of the concerned employment exchange and the
registration certificate so enclosed to the application has already lost its
validity in the month of December, 2021, Petitioner’s candidature cannot
be considered.
4.5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that after
qualifying in the physical test, when Petitioner was directed to appear for
document verification, she produced the registration certificate so issued
by the self-same employment exchange available at Page 37 and the other
certificate so issued in her favour on 30.12.2022 available at Page 38 of
the brief.
4.6. It is contended that since by the time the earlier registration certificate
expired in the month of December, 2021, Covid-19 pandemic was at its
peak, Petitioner could not get the same renewed and accordingly obtained
a fresh certificate on 30.12.2022 in order to make the application in terms
of the advertisement issued under Annexure-1. But along with her
application, she did not enclose the certificate issued on 30.12.2022. But
the said certificate along with the other certificate though were produced
at the time of verification of the documents, but on the ground that
Petitioner does not have the valid registration certificate, her candidature
was rejected under Annexure-5.
4.7. Accordingly, it is contended that since because of Covid-19,
Petitioner could not renew his certificate so issued earlier on 24.12.2018
Page 6 of 14
// 7 //
with the renewal fixed during December, 2021, the fresh registration
certificate so obtained by her on 30.12.2022, should have been accepted in
support of her candidature. But without proper appreciation of the
difficulty faced by the Petitioner in not getting the earlier certificate
renewed because of Covid-19 pandemic, Petitioner’s candidature was
rejected.
4.8. While relying on the decision in the case of Pritilata Nanda so cited
(supra), learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on a decision
of the High Court at Madhya Pradesh in W.P.(C) No. 13312 of 2022
disposed of on 07.12.2022. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held
as follows in Para 3 and 18 to 21:-
“3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is
bonafide resident of Village Kanchapura, Tahsil, Gohad,
District Bhind. In response to advertisement dated
31.12.2022 (Annexure P/1), examination form for the post of
Constable (GD) Police was filled up by the petitioner. It
appears from the record and submissions, petitioner had
registration certificate of Employment Exchange till
01.09.2020. Thereafter, petitioner could not renew his
registration certificate because of COVID-19 pandemic
situation. As submitted, office/website of respondent No.4
was not functioning due to COVID-19 pandemic, therefore,
he could not renew it and when he got the opportunity in
April, 2022 then he got it registered afresh on 04.04.2022.
xxx xxx xxx
18. Petitioner has tried to demonstrate through GOP dated
30.07.2012 vide No.137/2012 issued under Section 12 of the
Page 7 of 14
// 8 //
Police Act, 1868, prior permission of State Government vide
letter dated 27.07.2012 was taken. In the said GOP under
Clause 2(1) सामा् it has been referred that prior to 90 days
of deposit of application form, Live Registration in any of the
Employment Exchanges of State is required, but this aspect
pales into oblivion in view of the discussion made above.
Even otherwise, this qualification is not mandatory. It falls
under General Conditions, not under Special or Mandatory
one.
19. Sponsorship from employment exchange appears to be a
phenomena of closed economy and limited competition
whereby candidates were appointed through sponsorship by
the Employment Exchange without appearing in competitive
examination. Now in the era of open and competitive
examinations said concept has little meaning. Apparently this
was mechanism which is meant for providing employment
opportunities especially at Class- IV / Class -III level and
opportunity to the sons of the soil or local candidates. Here,
both the petitioners appear to be bonafide resident of
Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior region) therefore, this aspect may
not come into way of prospects of petitioner if they stand
successful in the examination.
20. Here, in the present sets of facts, one more aspect
deserves consideration is the onslaught of COVID-19
pandemic and the situation arose out of it. COVID-19
pandemic was once in a century phenomena and it virtually,
disrupted the proceedings to a great extent and all
procedural work of the government came to a grinding halt.
In such peculiar circumstances, when even Hon'ble Supreme
Court has taken a lenient view in respect of application for
Page 8 of 14
// 9 //
Limitation Act in different legal proceedings which is
otherwise to be reckoned and construed strictly, then other
procedural shortcomings (if they do not touch the core of the
qualifications) can be dispensed with. On this ground also,
petitioner has a good case on merits.
21. Respondents cannot restrict the prospect of candidate
who is otherwise successful and bearing essential
qualifications to move forward. Respondents are directed not
to insist upon the qualification of sponsorship of registration
certificate with Employment Exchange. They shall test the
suitability of both the petitioners just like any other candidate
on the parameters so fixed for recruitment of Constable (GD)
Police. Both the petitioners shall be entitled to appear in the
fray if they are otherwise eligible for the same.”
4.9. It is also contended that this Court while issuing notice of the matter
vide order dtd.16.01.2024, passed an interim order to the effect that in the
event the posts are lying vacant, one post of Constable in GRP Kataka
district, shall not be filled up till the next date.
4.10. It is also contended that as per the RTI information provided under
Annexure-9, in Kataka GRP as on 31.12.2022, the vacancy was indicated
at 43 and as on 31.10.2023, the vacancy was indicated at 22. It is
accordingly contended that since because of Covid-19, Petitioner could
not get the earlier registration certificate renewed and obtained a fresh
certificate on 30.12.2022 i.e. the date of publication of the advertisement
under Annexure-1, the said certificate should have been accepted in
support of her candidature and rejection of her candidature on the ground
that Petitioner does not have a valid registration certificate, requires
Page 9 of 14
// 10 //
interference of this Court with a direction on the Board to recommend her
name for her appointment as against the post of Constable (Civil) in GRP,
Kataka.
5. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while
supporting the impugned rejection contended that as provided in the
advertisement issued on 30.12.2022 under Annexure-1, more particularly
Para 6(f), it has been clearly indicated that the employment exchange
registration certificate should have been obtained before the date of
publication of the advertisement.
5.1. Since in the case in hand, the date of advertisement is 30.12.2022 and
nd
Petitioner obtained the 2 registration certificate on 30.12.2022, it is not
in terms of Para 6(f) of the advertisement. Accordingly, it is contended
that since the earlier registration certificate had lost its validity in the
nd
month of December, 2021 and the 2 certificate was obtained by the
Petitioner as on the date of the advertisement, in view of the stipulation
contained in Para 6(f) of the advertisement, such a certificate cannot be
accepted in support of the Petitioner’s candidature.
5.2. It is also contended that such a stipulation was made in the
advertisement in terms of the provisions contained under the Odisha
Police Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Constables) Order, 2021 so available under Annexure-A/2 to the counter
affidavit. It is accordingly contended that candidature of the Petitioner
was rightly rejected under Annexure-5, further confirmed under
Annexure-8.
Page 10 of 14
// 11 //
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering
the submissions made, this Court finds that pursuant to the advertisement
issued on 30.12.2022 under Annexure-1 by the State Selection Board
inviting application to fill up the post of Constable (Civil) in Odisha
Police, Petitioner made the application as against the vacancy indicated in
respect of GRP, Kataka.
6.1. As found, Petitioner along with her application enclosed the
Employment Registration Certificate so obtained and available at Page 37
of the brief. The certificate was issued on 18.12.2018 and due for renewal
in December, 2021. Basing on such application, Petitioner was allowed to
take part in the written test and on coming out successful and on being
shortlisted, she was issued with the admit card to take part in the physical
test vide Annexure-4. Petitioner also in terms of Annexure-4 participated
in the physical test. But as found, during verification of the documents,
taking into account the fact that the registration certificate so enclosed by
the Petitioner along with her application has expired in the month of
December, 2021, Petitioner’s application was rejected under Annexure-5.
6.2. It is found that such a rejection when was assailed by the Petitioner
before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 9558 of 2023, this Court vide order
dtd.03.04.2023 under Annexure-6 relying on the decision in the case of
Pritilata Nanda so cited supra and the other decisions, quashed the
rejection and directed Opp. Party No. 3 to take a fresh decision on the
claim of the Petitioner. In terms of the said order, Petitioner made a fresh
grievance before Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-7. But as found, such
claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of selection and appointment in
Page 11 of 14
// 12 //
GRP, Kataka as against the post of Constable (Civil) was rejected by Opp.
Party No. 3 vide the impugned order under Annexure-8 dtd.27.04.2023
6.3. It is the view of this Court that Petitioner along with her application
submitted the registration certificate so issued in her favour earlier on
24.12.2018, available at Page 37 of the brief. The said certificate was due
for renewal in the month of December, 2021. But because of Covid-19,
Petitioner could not renew the same in the month of December, 2021, and
accordingly obtained the fresh registration certificate on 30.12.2022 so
available at Page 38 of the brief. But on the ground that Petitioner does
not have the required registration certificate on the date of making the
application and the certificate issued on 30.12.2022 having been issued on
the date of the issuance of the advertisement, relying on Para 6(f) of the
Advertisement, Petitioner’s claim was not considered and rejected.
6.4. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Pritilata Nanda , it is
the view of this Court that since on the face of the submission of the
application along with the registration certificate so available at Page 37,
Petitioner was allowed to take part in the selection process all through, her
candidature could not have been rejected at the time of verification of the
documents. Not only that, since Petitioner because of the extra ordinary
situation arising out of Covid 19, could not renew the certificate, which
lost its validity in the month of December, 2021 and obtained a fresh
certificate on 30.12.2022, the said certificate should have been accepted
even though it was issued on the date of advertisement under Annexure-1.
6.5. Therefore, placing reliance on the decision of the High Court at
Madhya Pradesh and the decision in the case of Pritilata Nanda so cited
Page 12 of 14
// 13 //
(supra), this Court is of the view that the ground on which Petitioner’s
claim was rejected initially vide Annexure-5 and confirmed vide order
dtd.27.04.2023 under Annexure-8 of Opp. Party No. 3 are not sustainable
in the eye of law.
6.6. Therefore, this Court inclined to quash the rejection of the
Petitioner’s candidature on the ground indicated in Annexure-5 and 8 and
quash the same accordingly. While quashing the same, this Court directs
Opp. Party No. 3 to accept the registration certificate of the Petitioner so
produced and obtained by her on 30.12.2022 and take a fresh decision
with regard to selection of the Petitioner and recommend her name, if the
Petitioner is found eligible in all respect.
6.7. Taking into account the nature of the interim order passed by this
Court and the vacancy available under Annexure-9 so obtained by the
Petitioner under RTI, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to provide
appointment to the Petitioner, if her name is recommended by the Board-
Opp. Party No.3. This Court directs Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 3 to complete
the entire exercise within a period of two (2) months from the date of
receipt of this order.
6.8. However, it is observed that Petitioner if will be provided with the
appointment, she will not claim any benefit of seniority vis-à-vis her
batchmates who have already got the benefit of appointment and
Petitioner be treated as a new appointee in the rank of Constable (Civil) in
GRP, Kataka.
Page 13 of 14
// 14 //
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
Dated the 5 November, 2026/Sneha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2026 12:04:55
Page 14 of 14