CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has refused to interfere in the verdict of a single judge on a dispute regarding one per cent reservation of posts for sportspersons during appointment of 606 assistant professors in different disciplines in Group-A of Odisha Education Service (college branch) of government degree colleges in the state.
The dispute was first raised before the high court in a petition by Dr Archana Kanungo, a national-level Taekwondo player recognised by the Directorate of Sports. She was an aspirant for the post of assistant professor in sociology in the unreserved category.
Kanungo had sought the high court’s intervention when her name did not feature in the list of successful candidates of the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) after she participated in the interview on December 12, 2022. The single judge bench had dismissed the petition after OPSC said Kanungo could have been considered under the sportspersons category only if she had qualified in the original merit list prepared for unreserved candidates in sociology discipline. She had secured marks less than that obtained by the last person in the list of 12 successful candidates. Kanungo had then filed a writ appeal against the order.
The division bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice MS Raman said, “This court, in the aforesaid emerging factual matrix, does not feel expedient to delve into the matter in detail any further to upset the judgment of the single judge delivered in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by dismissing the writ petition.”
The bench also said it was not appropriate to re-appreciate evidence and substitute different view than what had been expressed by the single judge while sitting in this jurisdiction of intra-court appeal. “The single judge, having elaborately discussed the factual matrix with well-reasoned judgment considering enunciation of well-settled principles by the courts, the decision rendered vide judgment dated March 13, 2024, cannot be faulted with so as to warrant interference,” the division bench further observed.