THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.14205 of 2016

(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India )

Luice Mohanty ……. Petition er

-Versus-

District Judge, Sundargarh and Another ……. Opp. Parties

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kousik Ananda Guru, Advocate

For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, AGA

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

&

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 11.02.2026 :: Date of Judgement: 25.02.2026

S.S. Mishra, J. The present writ petition has been filed under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question

the common merit list dated 07.05.2016 published by the Registrar,

Civil Courts, Sundargarh in connection with recruitment to the post of

Junior Clerk-cum-Copyist for the year 2015-16.

2. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the selection of one

Itismita Bal (Roll No. JCC-071), who has been reflected as selected

Page 2 of 17

under the Unreserved category in the common merit list dated

07.05.2016, though she had applied for the post under the SEBC

category. The petitioner contends that such placement under the

Unreserved category resulted in her non-selection, despite her having

applied under the Unreserved category pursuant to the advertisement.

The factual backdrop, shorn of unnecessary details, is that the

Office of the District Judge, Sundargarh issued an advertisement

dated 03.09.2015 inviting applications in the prescribed format from

eligible candidates for recruitment to the posts of Junior Clerk-cum-

Copyist, Junior Typist and Junior Stenographer (Grade-III), all

belonging to Group-C category. The last date for submission of

applications was fixed as 30.09.2015.

Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted her

application for the post of Junior Clerk-cum-Copyist under the

Unreserved category. She was assigned Roll No. JCC-023 by letter

dated 27.11.2015 and was permitted to appear in the written

examination conducted on 20.12.2015.

Page 3 of 17

Upon qualifying in the written examination, the petitioner was

intimated vide letter dated 18.04.2016 and was called upon to appear

in the computer test scheduled on 07.05.2016, with an indication that

candidates qualifying therein would be required to appear in the viva-

voce test on the same day. The petitioner participated in the computer

test and, having qualified, also appeared in the viva-voce test held on

07.05.2016.

On 07.05.2016, the Registrar, Civil Courts, Sundargarh

published the common merit list for the post of Junior Clerk-cum-

Copyist. In the said merit list, the petitioner was placed at Serial No.5

under the Unreserved category, whereas Itismita Bal (Roll No. JCC-

071) was placed at Serial No.4 under the Unreserved category and

was subsequently appointed.

3. The petitioner contends that since Itismita Bal had applied

under the SEBC category, her selection and placement under the

Unreserved category is contrary to the terms of the advertisement and

the applicable recruitment rules, and has resulted in violation of

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Page 4 of 17

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has advanced

elaborate submissions on merits, primarily alleging undue favouritism

and manipulation in the selection process. It is contended that

Opposite Party No.2, who had applied under the SEBC category,

relied upon an SEBC certificate issued in the year 2012, i.e., nearly

four years prior to publication of the merit list dated 07.05.2016.

According to the petitioner, the said certificate ought to have been

duly scrutinized and verified at the time of preparation of the merit

list to ascertain whether Opposite Party No.2 continued to satisfy the

criteria of Socially and Educationally Backward Class and had not

entered the creamy layer during the intervening period.

It is further submitted that the affidavit furnished by Opposite

Party No.2 before the competent authority for issuance of the SEBC

certificate specifically stated that the certificate was to be utilized for

the purpose of higher education. Despite such declaration, the same

certificate was allegedly used for the purpose of seeking public

employment. The petitioner contends that such use is impermissible

and casts serious doubt on the validity and bona fides of the

candidature of Opposite Party No.2.

Page 5 of 17

It is also argued that having applied under the SEBC category,

Opposite Party No.2 could not have been considered and selected

under the unreserved category in deviation of the terms of the

advertisement and the applicable recruitment rules. The petitioner

submitted that such action amounts to arbitrariness, confers an

unwarranted advantage upon Opposite Party No.2, and is indicative of

undue favouritism on the part of the District Court authorities. The

entire selection process, to that extent, is therefore assailed as being

vitiated by illegality and is stated to be unsustainable in the eye of

law.

On the aforesaid premises, it is prayed that the common merit

list dated 07.05.2016, in so far as it relates to the selection of Opposite

Party No.2, be set aside and the petitioner, being next in order of

merit under the unreserved category, be appointed in her stead.

5. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the State has vehemently

opposed the aforesaid submissions and has alleged that the averments

made in the writ petition are baseless and devoid of any cogent

reasoning. It is argued that, as per the established principle of law, a

Page 6 of 17

certificate issued by the competent authority shall remain valid and

operative unless and until the same is cancelled or declared invalid by

the issuing authority in accordance with law.

On the next limb of submission, it is contended that though the

affidavit sworn in by the candidate may mention the purpose for

which the certificate was sought to be issued, the certificate itself does

not state or restrict its use for any particular purpose. Therefore,

merely because the affidavit refers to a specific purpose, the validity

of the certificate cannot be curtailed or questioned when the

certificate, on its face, contains no such limitation.

Additionally, on the point that an SEBC candidate cannot be

selected in the Unreserved (UR) category, it is submitted that such

contention is wholly misconceived. It is argued that a UR seat is not

reserved for any category and is open to all candidates purely based

on merit. Opposite Party No.2 has been selected against a UR seat on

her own merit, and there exists absolutely no bar under any rule that a

person applying under the SEBC category cannot be considered or

selected against a UR seat. Additionally, it is submitted that there

Page 7 of 17

exist a catena of Judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it

has been observed by the Apex Court that reserved category

candidates score well above the Unreserved candidates they can’t be

denied equality of treatment merely because they come from the

reserved category.

Accordingly, it is contended that the averments made in the

writ petition are completely misconceived, do not stand on any legal

footing, and as such, the writ petition is not maintainable and deserves

to be dismissed.

6. From the perspicacious analysis of the pleadings, documents

and the rival submissions advanced by learned counsels for the

parties, the following two questions emerge to be answered:

(1) Whether the SEBC Certificate obtained by the

petitioner for the purpose of admission in the higher

education is forbidden to be used for seeking

reservation in the employment?

(2) Whether a reserved category candidate could be

appointed against the Unreserved post sheerly on the

basis of his/her merits ?

Page 8 of 17

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not bring to our notice

any rules, regulation or a precedential law by any Constitutional

Court supporting his contention in so far as the first issue is

concerned. Although he has pointed out that the SEBC Certificate is

issued by the competent authority in favour of the opposite party No.2

is not perpetual or universal in nature. Rather, it was meant for a

particular period and for a specific purpose. The opposite party no.2

has disclosed in the affidavit the very purpose for which she had

obtained the SEBC Certificate. It is obviously forbidden for her to use

for any purpose except the purpose for which she has obtained the

Certificate. Once a SEBC Certificate is issued for a declared purpose,

such as education, scholarship, admission or for that matter of

employment, it cannot be re-purposed for any other subject not

disclosed or intended at the time of issuance of the Certificate. At this

juncture, taking into consideration the submission of the learned

counsel for the petitioner, we felt it appropriate to refer to the tenure

of the certificate and accordingly the photo-image of the certificate is

reproduced for the convenience of ready reference:

Page 9 of 17

The certificate issued by the Competent Authority doesn’t

indicate the purpose for which it has been issued or the tenure,

Page 10 of 17

however, bears a declaration that the certificate bearer doesn’t belong

to creamy layer.

Although the opposite party no.2 in the counter affidavit has

stated that she has obtained the certificate to apply for the higher

education, but reading of the certificate makes it clear that the same

was not meant for a specific purpose. No material has been placed by

the petitioner to show that the Opp. Party No. 2 has attained the

creamy layer status in the meantime.

8. We are alive to the fact that the SEBC status is a conditional

status and not absolute one. It depends upon the income status which

periodically varies. One, who falls under the creamy layer category,

loses the SEBC status. However, nothing is placed on record by the

petitioner to prove the contrary. Hence, continuity of the SEBC status

of the opposite party no.2 cannot be questioned only on assumptions

without there being any basis of material on record. The petitioner

further contended that it was the obligation on the part of the

employer under law to verify the authenticity of SEBC Certificate

produced by the private opposite party. Appointment given to the

private opposite party without verification of the reservation

Page 11 of 17

certificate is illegal and it is arbitrary exercise of power on the part of

the opposite party no.1, which is violation of the Constitutional

mandate of fair recruitment and renders the entire appointment

vulnerable to cancellation.

9. The argument advanced by the petitioner could have been

sustained, if any material would have been placed by her to establish

that the private opposite party has attained creamy layer status. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs.

Union of India, reported in 2008 (6) SCC 1 has already held that the

creamy layer principle is meant only to ensure that the benefits of

reservation flows to truly backward class of people those who are not

advanced socially or economically. Candidates falling under the

creamy layer category are not to be extended any reserved benefit, as

economically they are well of. There is no quarrel on the established

principle under law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

However, in the present case, there is no material brought on record to

doubt the SEBC status of the private opposite party. The SEBC

Certificate submitted by the opposite party No.2 for the purpose of

claiming reservation benefit in the employment cannot be found fault

Page 12 of 17

with. Moreover, in the present case, the opposite party no.2 has not

availed the benefit of reservation as she has been appointed sheerly on

merit under the UR category. Besides that the opposite party no.2 has

not either availed the age relaxation or exemption of the fee as a

SEBC candidate. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner regarding

her appointment under the UR category is completely misplaced.

Hence, the certificate furnished by the opposite party no.2 seeking

reservation as SEBC candidate lost its significance once she was

appointed under UR category on merits.

10. In so far as the second issue is concerned, it is relevant to rely

upon Rule-7 of the Odisha District and Subordinate Courts’ Non-

Judicial Staff Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of

Service) Rules, 2008.

“7. Manner of Selection of Candidates-(1) After

receipt of applications for recruitment

examination, career merit lists for general and

reserved categories according to the descending

order of total of percentage of marks in H.S.C.

Examination and + 2 examination or their

equivalent examinations shall be prepared.

(2) From each category of career

merit list, candidates upto 20 times of actual

vacancy in each category shall be called to

appear at the written test.

Page 13 of 17

(3) Considering the marks secured

in the written test, one merit list for the general

candidates and separate merit list for each of

the reserved categories shall be prepared and

candidates up to ten times of vacancy in each

category shall be called for computer science

test (practical), short hand and type writing test,

as the case may be, and the candidates selected

in such practical selected in test shall be called

for viva voce test.

(4) On the basis of marks secured in

the written test, practical test as provide in sub-

rule (3) and the viva voce test, a merit list of all

the candidates (both general and reserved

categories) shall be prepared and thereafter

separate merit list for general and reserved

categories shall be prepared according to the

descending order of total marks.

(5) Candidates according to the

descending order of total marks of each

category mentioned in sub-rule (4) shall be

selected for filing of the vacancy.

(6) The select list in respect of posts

advertised shall remain valid for a period of one

year from the date of first appointment from

such list or till the date notified for next

recruitment, whichever is earlier.”

11. The opposite party no.1 in compliance of the above Rule,

conducted the entire selection process. Ten numbers of posts for

Junior Clerk-cum-Copyist were advertised to be filled up. Out of

which three posts were reserved for the SC category (one woman),

three posts were reserved for the ST category (one woman), three

Page 14 of 17

posts were reserved for SEBC category (one woman) and one post

was meant for UR category (woman). Pursuant to the advertisement,

the petitioner as well as other candidates including the opposite party

no.2 submitted their applications for appointment to the post of Junior

Clerk-cum-Copyist. The petitioner submitted her application as an

UR category candidate whereas the opposite party no.2 submitted her

application as SEBC candidate. On the marks secured in the written

test as well as in the viva-voce test, a combined merit list of all the

candidates was prepared as per sub-rule (4) of Rule-7 of the Odisha

District and Subordinate Courts’ Non-Judicial Staff Services (Method

of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008. The opposite

party no.2 secured the fourth position in the general merit list and the

present Petitioner secured fifth position. Since the opposite party no.2,

although belongs to SEBC category, but secured fourth position in the

combined merit list, she was appointed against one post meant for UR

category. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner against the post meant

for UR category was obviously not made available for her because

she stood below opposite party No.2 in the combined merit list. The

petitioner could not have been appointed to the post of Junior Clerk-

Page 15 of 17

cum-Copyist, as the opposite party no.2, who was a SEBC candidate

was placed above her in the common merit list.

12. It is trite law that the candidate belongs to the reserved category

who secured higher position in the merit list in the process of

selection for appointment by virtue of his/her merit has to be

considered for appointment against the vacancy meant for the UR

category notwithstanding the fact that he has applied under the

reserved category and thus resultant slot under the reserved category

will be occupied by the next candidate under the said reserved

category in order of merit. This proposition of law is also settled by

various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including the

judgment in the case of State of Orissa vs. Raj Kishore Nanda,

reported in 2010 (6) SCC 777. In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court vs. Rajat Yadav,

reported in 2025 INSC 1503 has also reiterated the said principle,

inter alia, stating as under:

“74. Before we part, we find it necessary to enter a

caveat. A situation could arise, if the aforesaid

principles were applied, of a reserved category

candidate based on his/her performance outshining

General/Open candidates and figuring in the General

merit list, but finding the options to be limited. He/she

Page 16 of 17

may, as a consequence of being counted as a General

candidate, lose out on a preferred service or a preferred

post because the same is reserved for a reserved

category candidate. Should such an eventuality occur,

the same is bound to breed dissatisfaction,

disappointment and displeasure which are not in the

interests of public service. After all, fairness matters

even in public employment. Where adjustment against

the unreserved category would result in a more

meritorious reserved category candidate being displaced

in favour of a less meritorious candidate within the same

category for a preferred service or a preferred post

within the reserved quota, the former must be permitted

to be considered against the service/post in the reserved

quota. This would ensure merit being preserved both

across categories and within them, and that reservation

functions as a means of inclusion rather than an

instrument of disadvantage. The approach adopted by us

in holding so is consistent with the view expressed by

this Court, encapsulated in paragraph 24.1 of Alok

Kumar Pandit (supra). We may also mention here that

prior to the view expressed in Alok Kumar Pandit

(supra), the High Court at Calcutta in a somewhat like

situation took the same view in Mukul Biswas v. State of

West Bengal.”

In view of the settled principle of law as discussed above, the

answer to the second issue also goes in favour of the opposite party

No.2

13. Taking into consideration the entire conspectus of the present

case and on the basis of the settled position of law, the prayer made

by the petitioner in the writ petition deserves no merit. Hence, the writ

fails.

Page 17 of 17

14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

(Sibo Sankar Mishra)

Judge

M.R. Pathak, J. I agree.

(Manash Ranjan Pathak)

Judge

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Dated the 25

th

of February, 2026/Subhasis Mohanty