Damayanti Mahanta v. State Of Odisha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.C(OAC) No.3578 of 2015 Damayanti Mahanta ....
Petitioner -versusState of Odisha & Others ....
Opposite Parties COROM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
08.07.2022
1. 1.
This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
Order No 2.
Heard learned counsel for Petitioner and learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.
3.
The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer:- "Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the Original Application may be allowed and the impugned advertisement dated 11.3.2015 under Annexure-1 issued by the District Welfare Officer, Keonjhar may be quashed and necessary direction may be made to the respondents to select the applicant and appoint her against the post of lady Matrons in respect of Ketang Ashram School, Ketang pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.11.2014 as she was the only S.E.B.C category candidate within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Tribunal and any other order / orders or direction / directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the applicant".
4.
It is submitted that pursuant to the earlier advertisement issued on 28.11.2014 by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Keonjhar, the Petitioner not only made an application as a
// 2 // S.E.B.C women candidate, but she was the only applicant who had made such an application.
5.
It is also the case of the Petitioner that instead of providing her appointment basing on the said advertisement dated 28.11.2014 when another advertisement was issued on 11.03.2015 under Annexure-2 without considering her claim, the present Writ Petition was filed.
6.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the Opposite Parties by enclosing the advertisement issued on 28.11.2014. In the said advertisement, the minimum age prescribed for making an application was 45 years of age and above. Admittedly as on date of the said advertisement, the Petitioner had not attained the age of 45 years and she could not have made any application pursuant to the said advertisement. Thus, the prayer made by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition is mis-conceived and cannot be entertained.
7.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat