High court upholds single-judge order against 1% sports quota in asst prof jobs

Cuttack: The Orissa high court has upheld the verdict of a single judge who declined to entertain a grievance regarding 1% reservation of posts for sportspersons during appointment of 606 assistant professors in Group-A of Odisha Education Service (college branch) in govt degree colleges.
Dr Archana Kanungo, an aspirant for the post of assistant professor in sociology in the unreserved category had claimed to be a national-level taekwondo player recognised by the directorate of sports in addition to her academic credentials.
Initially, Kanungo moved the high court when she did not find place in the list of successful candidates published by the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) after she participated in the interview on December 12, 2022.
On March 13 this year, a single-judge bench endorsed the stand of OPSC that 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. She had got less marks than those secured by the last person in the list of 12 successful candidates.
Kanungo then filed a writ appeal against the March 13 order. The two-judge bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice M S 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.”
“It is not appropriate to re-appreciate evidence and substitute a different view than what has been expressed by the single judge, while sitting in this jurisdiction of intra-court appeal,” the bench observed on May 15.
“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 bench observed.