Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Ors vs Mamata Nayak on 12 March, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.2428 of 2024
State of Odisha and Ors. ... Appellants
Mr. S. B. Mohanty, A.G.A.
-versus-
Mamata Nayak ... Respondent
Mr. S. Routray, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASHDate of Hearing: 26.02.2026
Date of Judgment: 12.03.2026J, Chittaranjan Dash
1. This Intra-Court Appeal is directed against the judgment
dated 26.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)
No.10791 of 2022, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the present
Respondent was disposed of with a direction to the State-Appellants
to consider her case for engagement as Sikshya Sahayak or any
equivalent post against the existing vacancy, taking into account the
preference indicated by her in the application and to issue
appointment order in her favour in the district wherein she is found
eligible.
W.A. No.2428 of 2024 Page 1 of 12
2. The fact matrix of the case, in brief, is that the State
Government made a resolution dated 26.12.2016 laying down the
guidelines for engagement of Sikshya Sahayaks and pursuant
thereto recruitment was undertaken for filling up 14,087 posts
across various districts in the State. The Respondent, possessing +3
Arts with B.Ed. qualification, applied online under the SEBC
category and while submitting her application exercised options for
22 districts in order of preference, mentioning Bolangir as her first
preference and Malkangiri as the last. She was thereafter called for
verification of original certificates on 01.02.2018 and after such
verification a list of eligible candidates was published wherein her
name appeared at Sl. No.472. However, in the selection process she
could not come within the zone of consideration as she had secured
169.733 marks, which was below the prescribed cut-off marks for
the SEBC (Women) category. The records indicate that the cut-off
marks in the first round stood at 196.333 and in the subsequent
round at 204.411 for the relevant category and districts.
Consequently, despite the consideration of district preferences
during the rounds of selection, the Respondent was not selected.
Thereafter, the Respondent approached this Court in W.P.(C)
No.9290 of 2021 seeking consideration of her representation, which
was disposed of directing the State authorities to examine her claim.
Pursuant thereto, the State Government, by order dated 07.03.2022,
rejected the claim of the Respondent. Assailing the said rejection
order, the Respondent again approached this Court by filing
W.A. No.2428 of 2024 Page 2 of 12
W.P.(C) No.10791 of 2022, which came to be disposed of by the
learned Single Judge by judgment dated 26.04.2024 with the
direction as noted hereinbefore. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment, the State-Appellants have preferred the present intra-
court appeal.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
Appellants-State contended that the learned Single Judge erred in
directing consideration of the Respondent for engagement as
Sikshya Sahayak against the existing vacancies. It was submitted
that the Respondent had participated in the recruitment process
pursuant to the guidelines and advertisement dated 26.12.2016 and
was duly considered along with other candidates. However, she
secured only 169.733 marks, which was below the cut-off marks
prescribed for the SEBC (W) category, the same being 196.333 in
the first round and 204.411 in the subsequent round of selection. It
was further contended that the Respondent had exercised district
preferences and the authorities had undertaken the selection process
by considering such preferences in order of merit; nevertheless, as
she did not secure marks sufficient to fall within the zone of
selection, she could not be appointed. Learned AGA further
submitted that the recruitment process pursuant to the 2016
advertisement had already been concluded long ago and the unfilled
vacancies, if any, had been carried forward to subsequent
recruitment processes. Therefore, the direction issued by the learned
Single Judge to consider the Respondent for appointment against
W.A. No.2428 of 2024 Page 3 of 12
existing vacancies is contrary to the governing recruitment
framework and settled principles of service jurisprudence. It was
also argued that reliance placed by the Respondent on the decision
in in the matter of Babita Satpathy vs. State of Odisha in W.A.
No.701 of 2019 is misconceived, inasmuch as the said decision was
rendered in the peculiar facts of that case and cannot be treated as a
precendent applicable to all similarly placed candidates. On the
aforesaid grounds, learned AGA submitted that the impugned
judgment warrants interference in the present intra-court appeal.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
supported the impugned judgment and contended that the learned
Single Judge has rightly directed the Appellants to consider the case
of the Respondent for engagement against the available vacancies.
It was submitted that the Respondent had duly participated in the
recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement issued under the
Government guidelines dated 26.12.2016 and had successfully
undergone certificate verification, whereafter her name was
reflected in the list of eligible candidates at Sl. No.472. Learned
counsel further contended that though a large number of posts were
advertised, a substantial number of vacancies remained unfilled and
the authorities had not properly taken into account the district
preferences exercised by the candidates. According to him, had all
the preferences been duly considered, the Respondent would have
come within the zone of selection against the available vacancies. It
was further argued that similarly situated candidates had been
W.A. No.2428 of 2024 Page 4 of 12
granted relief by this Court in the matter of Babita Satpathy (supra),
and therefore the Respondent is also entitled to similar
consideration. Learned counsel submitted that the rejection order
dated 07.03.2022 was arbitrary and failed to properly appreciate the
factual position regarding the unfilled vacancies and the
Respondent’s claim. In such circumstances, it was contended that
the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised jurisdiction in
directing consideration of the Respondent’s case and the impugned
judgment does not warrant interference in the present appeal.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon careful
examination of the materials on record, we find that the controversy
essentially centres around the recruitment process initiated pursuant
to the Government Resolution dated 26.12.2016 for engagement of
Sikshya Sahayaks, wherein 14,087 posts were advertised across
different districts of the State. It is not in dispute that the
Respondent had participated in the selection process, had undergone
certificate verification and had been placed in the list of eligible
candidates. The grievance of the Respondent was that despite a
substantial number of vacancies remaining unfilled, her candidature
was not considered in accordance with the scheme of the
recruitment guidelines, particularly with regard to the consideration
of district preferences and preparation of the merit list.
6. The reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge, in our
considered view, stands supported by the long line of authorities
rendered by this Court in relation to the very same recruitment
W.A. No.2428 of 2024 Page 5 of 12
framework. In Babita Satpathy (supra), this Court, while dealing
with a challenge arising out of the recruitment process initiated
pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 26.12.2016, held that
where a substantial number of vacancies remained unfilled despite
the availability of eligible candidates who had participated in the
selection process, the authorities were required to consider such
candidates strictly in accordance with the recruitment guidelines
and could not prematurely close the selection process. The principle
underlying the said decision was that the object of the recruitment
exercise was to ensure filling up of the advertised vacancies through
a process that duly accounted for merit and the preferences
exercised by the candidates, and that administrative action defeating
such object could not be sustained. The same principle was
reiterated in Dhaneswar Das vs. State of Odisha in W.P.(C)
No.32208 of 2023, where this Court again emphasised that when
eligible candidates had participated in the selection process and
vacancies continued to remain available, the authorities were
obliged to extend due consideration to such candidates in
accordance with the governing guidelines, instead of declining their
claims on technical or procedural grounds. The position has been
further reaffirmed in Rashmi Ranjan Mohanty vs. State of Odisha
in W.P.(C) No.1215 of 2026, wherein this Court, dealing with
claims arising from the same recruitment scheme, reiterated that the
recruitment process must be carried to its logical conclusion in the
manner contemplated under the governing guidelines and that
W.A. No.2428 of 2024 Page 6 of 12
eligible candidates cannot be arbitrarily excluded from
consideration when vacancies remain unfilled.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is essential to visit the
observations made in the decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
matter of Radhey Shyam Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.,
reported in AIR 1997 SC 1610. The relevant paragraph is produced
as below:
8. It is needless to emphasise that the purpose and object
behind holding a recruitment examination is to select
suitable and best candidates out of the lot and such an
object can only be achieved by making a common select
list of the successful candidates belonging to all the zones.
On the other hand if zone-wise selection is made then
various candidates who appeared in some of the zones and
secured more marks than those who are selected from
other zones would be deprived of their selection resulting
into great injustice and consequent discrimination. Thus
there can be said to exist no nexus between the aforesaid
process of zone-wise selection and the object to be
achieved, that is, the selection of the best candidates. That
being so the process of selection as envisaged in paragraph
16 of the advertisement in question and reproduced in the
earlier part of this judgment would lead to discriminatory
results because by adopting the said process of zone-wise
selection would result in the devaluation of merit at the
selection examination by selecting a candidate having
lesser marks over the meritorious candidate who has
secured more marks and consequently the rule of equal
chance for equal marks would be violated. Such a process
would not only be against the principles enunciated
in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution but it would also
result in heart burning and frustration amongst the young
men of the country. The rule of equality of opportunity for
every individual in the country is an inalienable part of our
constitutional guarantee and that being so a candidate who
W.A. No.2428 of 2024 Page 7 of 12
secures more marks than another is definitely entitled to
get preference for the job as the merit must be the test
when selecting a candidate for recruitment for the posts
which are advertised. In the present case admittedly the
process of selection as envisaged in paragraph 16 of the
advertisement in question is violative of Article
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it has been
demonstrated from the marks st of the Appellants placed
before us at the Bar during the course of arguments that
they had secured more marks than those secured by some
of the selected candidates.
9. In the case of Rajendran Vs. State of Madras &
Ors. (1968(2) SCR 786) this Court had struck down the
district wise distribution of seats for the medical
admission as providing for unit wise allocation was held to
be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution on the
ground that it might result in candidates of inferior calibre
being selected in one district and those of superior calibre
not being selected in another district. Similarly in the case
of Peeriakaruppan Vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1971
(2) SCR 430) unit-wise allocation of seats was also held to
be void and was struck down as discriminatory. Again in
the case of Nidamarti Mahesh Kumar Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. (1986 (2) SCC 534) region-wise
scheme adopted by the State Government was held to be
void and struck down by this Court by holding that it
would result in denial of equal opportunity and was thus
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The ratio of
these decisions of this Court is fully attracted to the facts
of the present case in which the process of selection on the
zonal basis will also result in denial of equal opportunity
and would be violative of Article 14 and we hold
accordingly.”
8. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision assumes
relevance to the issue in the present case. Here, the Respondent had
participated in the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement
issued under the Resolution dated 26.12.2016, had undergone
W.A. No.2428 of 2024 Page 8 of 12
certificate verification and was included in the list of eligible
candidates, having secured 169.733 marks. Her claim, however,
came to be rejected by the authorities on the premise that she did
not fall within the cut-off marks for the districts corresponding to
the preferences exercised by her. The Respondent has been pursuing
her claim for consideration through successive rounds of litigation,
contending that the rejection of her candidature was not in
consonance with the recruitment guidelines governing the process.
In particular, reliance has been placed on Clauses 5.7, 5.10 and 5.11
of the guidelines, which, when read conjointly, indicate that the
authorities were required to prepare and finalise a 100% merit list
by considering the entire range of district preferences exercised by
the candidates through successive rounds until the vacancies were
filled or the pool of eligible candidates stood exhausted. It is also
not disputed that out of 14,087 advertised posts, as many as 4,136
vacancies remained unfilled, despite the availability of eligible
candidates who had participated in the recruitment process.
9. The submission advanced on behalf of the Appellants that the
Respondent could not be accommodated on account of the district
preferences exercised by her also does not persuade us to take a
view different from that of the learned Single Judge. The option of
preference indicated by a candidate during the application process is
essentially intended to reflect the order of inclination of the
candidate for allotment of district or post and cannot be construed
as conferring an absolute or exclusive right to be considered only in
W.A. No.2428 of 2024 Page 9 of 12
respect of the preferred district to the exclusion of all other
possibilities. Preference, by its very nature, is only a factor to be
taken into account while allocating vacancies in accordance with
merit and availability and does not operate as a rigid condition
capable of disqualifying a candidate from consideration altogether.
If the scheme of recruitment and the governing guidelines are read
in their proper perspective, it becomes evident that the purpose of
calling for preferences is to facilitate an orderly allocation of
vacancies while ensuring that the selection process ultimately
results in filling up the advertised posts. To interpret the preference
exercised by a candidate as a determinative bar would result in a
situation where candidates possessing identical qualifications and
having participated in the same recruitment process are appointed,
while others are denied consideration merely on account of district-
specific vacancy allocation, notwithstanding the existence of
vacancies elsewhere in the recruitment pool. Such an outcome
would run contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence and the
constitutional mandate embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India, which guarantee equality and equal
opportunity in matters of public employment. Consequently, the
exercise of preference cannot be interpreted in a manner that defeats
the larger object of the recruitment process or results in the
exclusion of otherwise eligible candidates when vacancies continue
to remain unfilled.
W.A. No.2428 of 2024 Page 10 of 12
10. In that circumstances, accepting the argument of the
Appellants that the Respondent’s candidature stood conclusively
foreclosed merely on account of the particular district preferences
exercised by her would effectively mean that an otherwise eligible
candidate, who has already participated in the selection process and
secured qualifying marks, can be denied consideration even when a
substantial number of vacancies continue to remain unfilled. Such
an approach would, in effect, create compartmentalised segments
within the recruitment process where vacancies in certain districts
remain unutilised while eligible candidates are excluded elsewhere.
This is precisely the situation which the Hon’ble Supreme Court
cautions against, emphasising that recruitment mechanisms must
operate in a manner that preserves the primacy of merit and avoids
artificial barriers that defeat equal opportunity. In the present case,
therefore, treating the Respondent’s district preferences as an
inflexible limitation, despite the existence of large unfilled
vacancies and the scheme of the guidelines requiring consideration
of all preferences until completion of the merit list, would
undermine the very objective of the recruitment exercise and lead to
the inequitable consequences which the Supreme Court sought to
prevent.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled position of
law, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) No.10791 of 2022. The direction issued therein
merely requires consideration of the Respondent’s case in
W.A. No.2428 of 2024 Page 11 of 12
accordance with the governing guidelines and does not confer any
automatic right of appointment.
12. Accordingly, the present Writ Appeal stands dismissed.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
A.K.Pradhan/Bijay/Sarbani
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 14-Mar-2026 14:48:21
W.A. No.2428 of 2024 Page 12 of 12