Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

850
5. The argument of Shri B.K. Das, the learned counsel for the opposite parties, is that the
application submitted by the petitioner for recruitment to the Orissa Judicial Service, Class-II, being
incomplete was liable to be rejected summarily and there was no illegality in the decision of the
Commission in rejecting the application of the petitioner. But, according to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, on the date on which the application was submitted the petitioner had already possessed
the required qualification, i.e., Oriya Language Test equivalent to M.E. School standard, but due to
her misfortune she was not aware of publication of her result in the Oriya Language Test for which she
had submitted an undertaking along with her application.
In order to fortify his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner, draws our attention to a decision
of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekher, 1993 (I) S.L.R. 379. The learned
counsel relying upon the aforesaid decision submits that the petitioner was fully qualified prior to the
date of the interview. So, the action of the opposite parties in rejecting the application of the petitioner
was wrong. He further refers to a decision of this Court in Urmila Beura v. Director, Higher Education,
Orissa, 1997 (II) O.L.R. 263, wherein it was held that if the candidate had already appeared at the
particular examination by the time of making application and results were out before the date of
interview; it would be deemed that the candidate has acquired requisite qualification.
In the case of Urmila Beura (supra), selection of candidate for appointment to the post of Lecturer
in Education in Bhadrak Women’s College was challenged on the grounds, firstly, that the appointee
did not have the requisite qualification of Master’s Degree in Education as on the last day of receipt of
applications and, secondly, the appointment was on extraneous consideration, such as, political pressure
and influence. But the candidate, who was selected and appointed, was allowed to appear at the
interview by the Government Body of the College even though she did not have the requisite qualification
on the last date of submission of application whereas the petitioner had the requisite qualification. The
facts narrated in the present case are totally different from that of Urmila Beura’s case. In the case at
hand, the Commission on scrutiny of the application of the petitioner rejected the same summarily as
the same was incomplete. It is worthwhile to mention here that in the advertisement, Annexure-1, the
candidates were warned that applications received incomplete in any respect are liable to be summarily
rejected. The petitioner could only appear at the written test as well as at the viva voce test by virtue
of the interim order passed by this Court. In our considered opinion, the interim order of this Court
can never confer any right on the petitioner.
Orissa PSC