Nalinikanta Biswal v. Odisha Staff Selection Commission
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC(OAC) No.2418 of 2014 Nalinikanta Biswal ....
Petitioner Mr.Rama Chandra Jena, Adv.
-versusOdisha Staff Selection Commission & others ....
Opp. Parties Mr. G.R. Mohapatra,ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
05.04.2022 Order No.
1.This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
2. The petitioner had filed the original application before the State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, which has been transferred to this Court.
3. The petitioner having requisite qualification of Diploma (Mechanical) applied for the post of Assistant Training Officer to be appointed in the Government I.T.Is. and skill development centre in the State under the Directorate of Technical Education and Training, Odisha.
4. In response to the advertisement, the petitioner applied for the said post and OSSC conducted the written examination. He secured 56 marks out of 100 marks and appeared before the Commission for verification of documents. Thereafter, final result was published, wherein his name did not find place and the opposite party No.3,
// 2 // belonging to similar SEBC category securing 43 marks got selected. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has secured more marks, he has not been selected. In such view of the matter, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to select him as an Assistant Training Officer.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that though the petitioner secured more marks than the opposite party No.3, while scrutiny took place, the document which was required, the petitioner failed to submit. In view of such facts, the petitioner's case was not considered. He further submits that since the petitioner did not submit the copy that is required for verification at the time of final selection, his case was not considered.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that since the petitioner did not comply with the conditions prescribed in the advertisement, his case cannot be considered.
7. Accordingly, the WPC (OAC) is dismissed.
(S.K. Panigrahi) Judge
// 3 //