Patna High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WA No.181 of 2025 In the matter of an Appeal under Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna and Rule 6 of Chapter-III and Rule 2 of Chapter-VIII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948 *** Khemraj Dewangan Aged about 35 years Son of Somanath Dewangan At/P.O.: Panchampur P.S.: Dharambandha District: Nuapada. … Appellant (Petitioner in the writ petition) 1. State of Odisha -VERSUS- Represented through Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes Development, Minorities and Backward Classes Welfare Department At: Loka Seva Bhawan P.O.: Bhubaneswar District: Khordha. WA No.181 of 2025 Page 1 of 32 2. Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Nuapada At/P.O./District: Nuapada. 3. District Welfare Officer, Nuapada At/P.O./District: Nuapada. 4. Manas Ranjan Pandey Son of Pradeep Kumar Pandey At: Pandelbahali P.O.: Konabira, Via: Komna District: Nuapada. … Respondents (Opposite parties in the writ petition) Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Appellant : Mr. Biswabihari Mohanty, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 Mr. Saswat Das, : Additional Government Advocate For the Respondent No.4 Mr. Budhadev Routrary, : Senior Advocate assisted by M/s. Subhadutta Routray, Shakti Sekhar, Jagdish Biswal, Charvi and Satya Brata Dash, Advocates P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. HARISH TANDON AND HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN WA No.181 of 2025 Page 2 of 32 Date of Hearing : 16.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 23.12.2025 J UDGMENT MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.— Assailing legality, propriety and rationality in disposing of the writ petition, bearing W.P.(C) No.23296 of 2021, vide Judgment dated 21st November, 2024 rendered by a learned Single Bench of this Court exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in, wherein and whereby the eligibility of the Respondent No.4 for the post of Hindi Teacher as questioned by the Appellant stood rejected, the afore-noted intra-Court appeal is preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna read with Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 and Rule 6 of Chapter-III and Rule 2 of Chapter-VIII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948. Facts: 2. Responding to invitation to apply for the posts inter alia Hindi Teacher published in the Advertisement No.2333/ SSD, dated 10th October, 2018, the Appellant, belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Class category and qualified Bachelor of Arts in Hindi (Degree Course) from Shobhit University, Meerut in the year 2013, Bachelor of Education from Dakshina Bharat Hindi WA No.181 of 2025 Page 3 of 32 Prachar Sabha in the year 2015 and “Rashtrabhasha Shastri” from Odisha Rashtrabhasa Parishad, Puri in the year 2017; and whereas the Respondent No.4 qualified Bachelor of Arts (Degree Course) from Sambalpur University in the year 2013, Bachelor of Education from Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha in the year 2017 and “Rashtrabhasha Shastri” from Odisha Rashtrabhasa Parishad, Puri in the year 2018 offered candidature for the said category of post for appointment in the High School/Girls‟ High School running in Nuapada District under the aegis of the Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development, Minorities and Backward Classes Department. 2.1. On completion of selection process, a final select list was published on 27th November, 2019, where the Respondent No.4 was shown to have been selected against the vacant post of Hindi Teacher (Unreserved category), but the Appellant was included in the waiting list. 2.2. Raising objection to such selection and appointment of the Respondent No.4, the Appellant made a representation before the Collector, Nuapada. Though the Respondent No.4, belongs to SEBC category, as he secured 790 marks out of 1800 marks, i.e., 43.88% marks in Degree Course, whereas the Appellant secured more than 50% marks, the selection of the Respondent WA No.181 of 2025 Page 4 of 32 No.4 is not in consonance with the requirement as specified in the Advertisement. It is the requirement with respect to academic qualification that the candidate must have secured more than 50% marks in aggregate (45% marks for SEBC candidate) in Bachelor Degree in Arts/Commerce. Therefore, it is the case of the Appellant that the Respondent No.4 having no basic eligibility could not have been selected inasmuch as he was not entitled to even qualify to appear at the Odisha Secondary School Teacher Eligibility Test. 2.3. Since such representation yielded no result, the Appellant approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.4878 of 2020, which was disposed of on 17th February, 2020 with a direction to consider said representation and pass an appropriate order. The Collector, Nuapada having heard the contentions of the Appellant, rejected the claim of the Appellant assigning reason that by taking into consideration the marks secured in “Rashtrabhasha Shastri” the Respondent No.4 was selected, since his marks were found to be higher in percentage of mark than the Appellant. Such rejection order was communicated to the Appellant vide Letter No.550, dated 9th February, 2021 which was subject matter of
Decision
challenge in the writ petition. WA No.181 of 2025 Page 5 of 32 2.4. Assailing the refusal to accede to the claim of the Appellant for engagement as Hindi Teacher, a writ petition, registered as W.P.(C) No.23296 of 2021, was filed, which came to be disposed of vide Judgment dated 21st November, 2024 by the learned Single Judge with the following observation(s): “*** 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that pursuant to the advertisement issued by O.P. No.2 on 10.10.2018 under Annexure-1 series, petitioner and O.P. No.4 applied for the post of Hindi Teacher. As found from the advertisement, the qualification prescribed for the post of Hindi Teacher vide Para-3(d) is Bachelor Degree from a recognised University with Hindi as one of the elective subject with minimum 50% mark in aggregate or with Rastra Bhasa Ratna or Sastri from Odisha Rastra Bhasha from Hindi Parishad and Sikshya Parangat from Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra, B.H.Ed. Course prescribed by NCTE from a recognized institution, B.Ed. in Hindi from Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras. training qualification 6.1. As found from the record, O.P. No.4 not only passed the +3 Arts from Sambalpur University but also in addition to that has passed the Sastri examination so conducted by Odisha Rastra Bhasha Parishad, Puri and B.Ed. from Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, the Madras. This Court after going qualification prescribed for the post of Hindi vide Para-3(d) of the advertisement and the document through WA No.181 of 2025 Page 6 of 32 available under Annexure-3 series, is of the view that O.P. No.4 does have the required qualification to participate in the interview. 6.2. Since the only ground of challenge by the petitioner that the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification to participate in the selection process as provided under Annexure-13, this Court is of the view that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by in selecting and providing appointment to O.P. No.4 vide order dated 06.12.2019 under Annexure-5. the O.P. No.2 in issued under Annexure-1, 6.3. The qualification prescribed in the Resolution dated 17.09.2016 under Annexure-13 though is meant for the the post of Hindi Teacher, but since the advertisement qualification has been prescribed in a manner which was never assailed by the petitioner while participating in the selection process, this Court placing reliance on the decisions cited supra, is also of the view that petitioner after participating in the selection process, cannot challenge the qualification so prescribed in the advertisement. In any view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.” 2.5. Dissatisfied thereby, the appellant has filed the instant writ appeal. Hearing: 3. The writ appeal challenging the Judgment dated 21st November, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.23296 of 2021 has been preferred with a delay, which was condoned by this Page 7 of 32 WA No.181 of 2025 Court vide Order dated 11th November, 2025. Accordingly, it was directed to be listed under the heading “Fresh Admission”. 3.1. On the consent of the counsel for the respective parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of “Fresh Admission” as short point is involved whether “Rashtrabhasa Shastri” qualification is correctly considered by the Collector, Nuapada as equivalent to Bachelor‟s Degree (+3/B.A.) so that taking into consideration the higher percentage of marks secured in “Rashtrabhasha Shastri”, the Respondent No.4 could be declared successful for appointment/engagement in the post of Hindi Teacher. 3.2. Accordingly, heard Sri Biswabihari Mohanty, learned Advocate for the appellant and Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Jagdish Biswal, learned Advocate for Respondent No.4. Arguments: 4. Sri Biswabihari Mohanty, learned Advocate for the Appellant citing that the Order dated 9th February, 2021 of the Collector, Nuapada is erroneous and bereft of legal sanctity submitted that the learned Single Judge should have interfered with the appointment of the Respondent No.4 as the marks secured in the “Rashtrabhasha WA No.181 of 2025 Page 8 of 32 Shastri” could not be guiding factor in place of marks secured in the Bachelor of Arts. As the Appellant has secured more marks in the Bachelor of Arts he should have been selected for the post in question. 4.1. Referring to Guidelines for conduct of Odisha Secondary School Teacher Eligibility Test issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Cuttack in consonance with the Government of Odisha in School and Mass Education Department Resolution No. 18618/VII(B)/ SME(X)-199/2014, dated 17.09.2016, he would submit that the eligibility for appearing in the said examination requires following academic qualification(s) to become a Hindi Teacher: “1. The Teacher Eligibility Test shall be called “Odisha Secondary School Teacher Eligibility Test (OSSTET). *** 4. Applicability: and requisite academic OSSTET shall be applicable to all candidates who possess training qualifications with requisite percentage of marks No.18618/SME, Bhubaneswar Dated 17.09.2016 of the Government of Odisha in Department of School as prescribed in the Resolution & Mass Education, or are in the process of acquiring the requisite training qualification (in the final year of Training Course or appearing/have appeared in the training examination but results awaited) as on the date of publication of the advertisement for the OSSTET and WA No.181 of 2025 Page 9 of 32 desire to become teachers in Secondary Schools i.e. Government/Aided/Recognised Unaided Secondary Schools in the State of Odisha. 5. Eligibility: *** C. Requisite academic and professional qualification: The examination will be conducted in two different parts for the prospective teachers in two different categories such as: Category-I.— Teachers Education Teachers Teacher (Sanskrit/Urdu/Telugu) (Trained Graduate in Science/Arts, Hindi/Classical Category-II.— Physical Education Teacher. The requisite academic and professional qualification for admission to the OSSTET for those two categories are mentioned in the schedule/table below: Category Sl. No. * 3. * 1 Subject / Stream * Hindi Teacher Academic and Professional qualification * 1. Bachelor‟s Degree from a recognised University with Hindi as the Honours/ one Elective/Optional/ Pass subject with minimum 50% marks In aggregate (45% for SC/ ST/ PH/ SEBC candidates.) of AND Any one of the following training qualifications: a) Hindi Sikshyan Parangat from Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra. b) B.H.Ed, a course prescribed by NCTE, from a recognised University/institution. WA No.181 of 2025 Page 10 of 32 c) B.Ed in Hindi, a course prescribed by NCTE, from Dakhin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras. OR 2. Bachelor‟s Degree from a recognised University with minimum 50% marks in aggregate (45% for SC/ST/PH/SEBC candidates) WITH One of the following qualifications: a) Rastrabhasa Ratna from Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti, Wardha, b) Shastri (Hindi) from Orissa Rastrabhasa Parisad, Puri. c) Snataka (Acquired by June, 2005, the date up to which the temporary recognition has been granted) from Hindi Sikshya Samiti, Odisha, Cuttack. AND One of the following Training qualifications: a) Hindi Sikshyan Parangat from Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra. b) B.H.Ed. a course prescribed by NCTE, from a recognized University/Institution. c) B.Ed. in Hindi, a course prescribed by NCTE, from Dakhin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras * * * * It is vociferously submitted that when the Respondent No.4 has no eligibility to qualify the OSSTET, his appointment is void ab initio. It is, therefore, desirable to conduct an enquiry that the certificate depicting that the Respondent No.4 qualified the OSSTET is obtained by practising fraud. 4.2. Advancing submissions further, it is argued by Sri Biswa Bihari Mohanty, learned Advocate that the Eligibility criteria specified in the Advertisement dated 10.10.2018 for making application for the post of Hindi Teacher is not in tune with Guidelines for conducting Government WA No.181 of 2025 Page 11 of 32 of Odisha in School and Mass Education Department Resolution No. 18618/VII(B)/SME(X)-199/2014, dated 17.09.2016. 4.3. The learned Single Judge on an erroneous appreciation of documentary evidence forming part of pleadings dismissed the writ petition by sanctifying illegal appointment of the Respondent No.4. 5. Opposing the contentions of the Appellant and submissions advanced by his counsel, it is arduously submitted by Sri Jagdish Biswal, learned Advocate that the Respondent No.4 has in possession the requisite certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education showing that he qualified the Odisha Secondary School Teacher Eligibility Test on 09.02.2017. Such certificate being issued by Government Organisation cannot be impeached lightly and mere allegation of the Appellant cannot trigger an enquiry. The Certificates available on record clinch that the Respondent No.4 has the requisite other qualifications as required under the Advertisement for appointment to the post of Hindi Teacher. The Appellant, being a stranger, has no locus standi to question the veracity of such certificates. So long as the issuing authorities have not disputed the genuineness of such certificates, it cannot be impeached by the Appellant. WA No.181 of 2025 Page 12 of 32 5.1. The Collector, Nuapada upon hearing pursuant to direction of this Court meticulously examined the documents and found the Respondent No.4 as having qualified for the post since he has secured more marks in the Rashtrabhasha Shastri, which is treated to be equivalent to Bachelor of Arts (Degree Course), than the marks secured by the Appellant. Hence, the learned Single Judge having delved into the merit of the matter in proper perspective, the Judgment impugned herein does not warrant interference. Discussions, Observations and Conclusion: 6. At the outset it needs to be examined whether “Rashtrabhasha Shastri” qualification is to be treated equivalent to Bachelor‟s Degree (+3/B.A.). Such aspect has been discussed threadbare by this Court in the case of State of Odisha Vrs. Pabitra Behera, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 3835. It was held in the said case as follows: “7.7. Bearing in mind such golden rules of construction, it may not be apposite to gainsay that for the post of Hindi Teacher, “an applicant must have passed Bachelor Degree Examination from a recognised University with Hindi as one of the elective subject” or “with Rastrabhasha Ratna from Rastrabhasha Prachar Samiti, Wardha” or “with Sastri from the Odisha Rastrabhasa Parisad, Puri”. As respondent herein has the Bachelor’s Degree as also the qualification of “Sastri”, which has been notified as equivalent to +3/B.A., having WA No.181 of 2025 Page 13 of 32 *** 9. more than 45% or even 50% marks in aggregate, as elaborately discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, there is no iota of doubt in mind that the Collector, Angul while disposing of the representation of the respondent in his Order dated 20.01.2023 has not considered the matrix of fact in proper perspective. From the factual narration discernible from record, more particularly the percentage of marks secured with respect to qualifications as depicted in tabular form in the Order dated 20.01.2023 of the Collector, Angul, clinches that the respondent has secured 36% marks in Bachelor of Arts and 63.75% marks in “Rastrabhasha Sastri” (which is treated equivalent to B.A.). In the wake of discussions made supra, it “Sastri” qualification is equivalent to Bachelor’s Degree (+3/B.A.). This apart, the respondent, a candidate in the category of Scheduled Caste, has secured more than 45% marks in Sastri Examination. The reasons for rejection of representation of the respondent cannot, thus, be countenanced. thus, unambiguous that is, 9.1. Bearing in mind given legal perspective with respect to treatment of “Sastri” qualification as equivalent to +3/B.A. (Bacholor‟s Degree) and being not oblivious to the situation as reflected in Resolution of the Government of Odisha in School and Mass Education Department bearing No. 23395-VIII-(B)- 27.10.2014, SME-(X)-231/2014/SME, indicating common qualification in Hindi are not available in the State as a result large numbers of posts of Hindi Teachers are lying vacant in such institutions”, this Court dated the above “In spite of WA No.181 of 2025 Page 14 of 32 finds no infirmity or illegality in the approach of the learned Single Judge in passing Order dated 28.11.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 24577 of 2023.” 6.1. In the aforesaid case this Court examined the terms of eligibility criteria for the post of Hindi Teacher, which matches in all fours with that of the eligibility criteria specified in the Advertisement dated 10th October, 2018. Therefore, the observations made in the case of State of Odisha Vrs. Pabitra Behera, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 3835 equally applies to the present context. 6.2. Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate drew attention of this Court to Government of Odisha in School and Mass Education Department Order No. 20561— IX-SME(P)-17/2005/SME, Bhubaneswar, dated 22.10.2008, which runs thus: “Sub.: Equivalence of Shastri Examination by Orissa Rastrabhasha Parisad, Puri and Snatak by Hindi Siksha Samiti Orissa, Cuttack with B.A. in Hindi. The minimum educational qualification for the post of Hindi Teacher in Government, Fully Aided Block Grant and recognized High Schools was prescribed that a candidate shall be “A Bachelors Degree from a Recognized University with Hindi as one of the elective subject or with Rastrabhasa Ratna from Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti, Wardha or an equivalent degree from a recognized institution and Hindi Sikshana Parangat from Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra/Hindi Teachers Training Certificate Institute, Cuttack, Course from Hindi Training WA No.181 of 2025 Page 15 of 32 Bhubaneswar and Sambalpur” vide this Department Resolution No.3424, dtd.18.02.2008. Hindi Sikshya Samiti Orissa, Cuttack and Odisha Rastrabhasa Parishad, Puri have represented to the Govt. for declaration of equivalency of Snatak and Shastri examination of their institutions with that of Ratna Examination conducted by Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti Wardha. clarified The Government of India, Central Hindi Directorate, of Human Resource Development Ministry Department of Secondary and Higher Education in their letter No.F-11-1/2007/Extn. Dated 08.09.2008 the Shastri Examination have conducted by Orissa Rastrabhasa Parisad, Puri and Snatak Examination by Hindi Sikshya Samiti, Orissa, Cuttack are recognized as equivalent to B.A. Hindi standard only and never been recognized as full fledge degree. that It has been further clarified that Shastri has been accorded permanent recognition whereas Snatak has been accorded temporary recognition up to June, 2005 and permanent to Snatak Examination is under consideration of Hindi Sikshya Samiti duly constituted by Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, New Delhi. recognition Therefore, Government have been pleased to decide that B.A. with Shastri qualification will be equivalent to B.A. in Hindi and B.A. with Snatak qualification acquired by June, 2005 will be treated as equivalent to B.A. in Hindi WA No.181 of 2025 Page 16 of 32 only for the purpose of appointment as Hindi Teacher.” 6.3. This Court, being fortified with the observations made in State of Odisha Vrs. Pabitra Behera, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 3835 and having regard to the above decision of the Government of Odisha, has other opinion than to consider that Bachelor of Arts with Rashtrabhasha Shastri qualification is equivalent to Bachelor in Arts (Hindi). 6.4. The learned Single Judge has taken note of academic qualification required for applying for the post of Hindi Teacher in Nuapada District High Schools/Girls‟ High Schools under the Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Castes Development Department as per the Advertisement dated 10th October, 2018. In paragraph 3 of his judgment it is reflected as follows: (45% in aggregate “Hindi Teacher: Bachelor Degree from a recognized University with Hindi as one of the elective subject with minimum 50% marks for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) or with Rashtra Bhasa Ratna from Rastra Bhasha Pracher Samiti, Vardha or with Sastri from Odisha Rastra Bhasha Parishad, Puri or with Snatak (acquire by June, 2005), the date upto which the temporary recognition has been granted) from Hindi Sikshya Samiti, Odisha, Cuttack, or an equivalent Degree from a recognized Institution with at least 50% marks in aggregate (45% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) and Hindi Sikshyan Parangat from Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra/ B.H.Ed. (a course prescribed by WA No.181 of 2025 Page 17 of 32 NCTE) from a Institution recognized by NCTE) and affiliated to a recognized university/B.Ed. in Hindi (a course prescribed by NCTE) from Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras and Institution recognized by NCTE and affiliated to a recognized University. Or the Bachelor Degree with Hindi as optional/Honours subject with 50% marks in aggregate (45% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) and M.A. in Hindi with minimum 50% marks in aggregate from a recognized university.” one of 6.5. In State of Odisha Vrs. Pabitra Behera, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 3835 this Court taken note of identical eligibility criteria and held in favour of the selection of the respondent therein for the post of Hindi Teacher. 6.6. The Collector of Nuapada while disposing of representation of the Appellant vide Order dated 9th February, 2021 observed as follows: “Whereas in compliance to the direction of the High Court, the petitioner had been afforded opportunity of being heard, and have been appraised and intimated adequately and sufficiently by this office openly on the point of contention the petitioner had raised in the writ petition, Whereas, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 28.10.2019 addressed to the Chairman of the Selection Committee and Collector, Nuapada to the objections invited to the provisional merit list of Hindi Teacher published by this office, praying for consideration WA No.181 of 2025 Page 18 of 32 of his higher qualification of Hindi Sastri Mark with an expectation to secure the job of Hindi Teacher, include Whereas, the Selection Committee considered his prayer and allowed the higher to percentage of marks secured in Sastri and other equivalent examinations instead of B.A. as qualifying examination and marks. All the other candidates were also allowed the same, relief accordingly following principle of natural justice. Whereas, after considering the prayer of the petitioner Sri Dewangan, the Selection Committee re-casted the Merit List on the basis of marks secured by all other candidates, published the final merit list-cum-selection list and appointment order issued in favour of the OP No. 4, Sri Manas Ranjan Pandey on the basis of higher percentage of marks secured, Whereas, on being unsuccessful in the selection process, he preferred an appeal in the Hon‟ble High Court, Orissa vide above said WPC. Whereas, the petitioner along with his advocate have conceded and accepted the above facts in the open office of the DWO, Nuapada, during the 1st fortnight of March 2020, and since the matter was explained and intimated to the petitioner, the direction of the Hon‟ble High Court has been justly complied with, Now therefore, since, adequate opportunity had been afforded during March 2020 to the petitioner; since the COVID-19 pandemic has slightly subsided, hence in pursuance to the above Paras, it is hereby intimated that the petition has been disposed of having no merit.” WA No.181 of 2025 Page 19 of 32 6.7. Aforesaid Order of the Collector unequivocally spells out that all the candidates were treated equally and the marks obtained in the “Rashtrabhasha Shastri” has been evaluated for the purpose of consideration of selection for the post of Hindi Teacher. There being no discriminatory treatment meted out to candidates, the allegation of the Appellant that percentage of marks in Rashtrabhasha Shastri could not have been taken in preference to the marks obtained in the Bachelor Degree examination is unfounded. Rather, it transpires on perusal of said Order that the Appellant along with his counsel appearing before the Collector has conceded to such evaluation process. As the Respondent No.4 had obtained higher percentage marks than the marks of the Appellant in Rashtrabhasha Shastri, the learned Single Judge is justified in not interfering with the decision of the Collector, Nuapada. 6.8. The law in this regard is well-established that in the matter of opinion of experts in academic matters, the High Court does not sit in appeal for the judicial review is of the decision making process but not of the decision. 6.9. In Central Board of Secondary Education through Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination Vrs. Khushboo Shrivastava, (2014) 14 SCC 523, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India held as under: WA No.181 of 2025 Page 20 of 32 “11. In our considered opinion, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have substituted his/its own views for that of the examiners and awarded two additional marks to Respondent 1 for the two answers in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution as these are purely academic matters. This Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vrs. Paritosh (1984) 4 SCC 27 has Bhupeshkumar Sheth, observed: possessing „29. *** As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to- day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grassroots problems the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded.‟ ” involved in 6.10. In Tajvir Singh Sodhi Vrs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay the principle of Court‟s power to intervene with the evaluation method adopted by WA No.181 of 2025 Page 21 of 32 Selection Committee. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder: “66. Thus, the inexorable conclusion that can be drawn is that it is not within the domain of the Courts, exercising the power of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a Selection Committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts intervene. the before appearing 67. Thus, Courts while exercising the power of judicial review cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role to examine whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in the viva-voce are excessive and not corresponding to their performance in such test. The assessment and evaluation of the performance of candidates Selection Committee/Interview Board should be best left to the members of the committee. In light of the position that a Court cannot sit in appeal against the decision taken pursuant to a reasonably sound selection process, the following grounds raised by the writ petitioners, which are based on an attack of subjective criteria employed by the selection board/interview panel in assessing the suitability of candidates, namely, (i) that the candidates who had done their post-graduation had been awarded 10 marks and in the viva-voce, such PG candidates had been granted either 18 marks or 20 marks out of 20. (ii) that although the writ petitioners had performed exceptionally well in the interview, the authorities WA No.181 of 2025 Page 22 of 32 had acted in an arbitrary manner while carrying out the selection process, would not hold any water. *** 89. Only 20 out of 100 marks were allocated for interview/viva-voce. The same is only 20% of the total marks which cannot be said to be an excessive proportion out of the total marks. Further Courts cannot sit in judgment over the award of marks by an interview panel. That is best left to the judgment and wisdom of the interview panel. In the above premise, we do not think there is any merit in the contention of the writ petitioners regarding the award of marks to the candidates who appeared for viva-voce before the panel. Moreover, the award of 80% of the total marks is on objective criteria depending upon the educational qualification of the individual candidates.” 6.11. Thus, in our considered view, when an expert body has decided to evaluate the marks on the basis of marks obtained in Rashtrabhasha Shastri without any discrimination to any of the candidates, it is not open for this Court to interfere with the matter. In view of the legal perspective expounded by the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education through Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination Vrs. Khushboo Shrivastava, (2014) 14 SCC 523 and Tajvir Singh Sodhi Vrs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344 no interference is needed in the matter as there is absence of any substance or WA No.181 of 2025 Page 23 of 32 material that evaluation or assessment of merits of candidates was made erroneously. The method of evaluation of marks needs to be left to the members of the Selection Committee. The Court in exercise of its power of judicial review cannot sit in appeal to arrive at an alternative view other than the view taken by the experts. The Selection Committee have sufficient expertise and the evaluation process of the candidates for selection as per their required eligibility to the post of Hindi Teacher is entirely within the domain of such Committee/experts. 6.12. It is now well settled1 that the Court should not interfere in matters involving academic expertise. It would not be right for the Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the Selection Committee having expertise in the matter. The Court does not possess any expertise. It is wise and safe for this Court to leave the decision to adopt methods of evaluation for selecting candidates in the process of selection to the post of Hindi Teacher as per the requirement of the concerned to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Court. 7. Another significant point which needs to be considered is whether the Appellant having participated in the recruitment process in terms of the Advertisement dated 1 Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vrs. Karnataka University and another, 1986 (suppl) SCC 740; The University of Mysore Vrs. C.D. Govinda, AIR 1965 SC 491, Tariq Islam Vrs. Aligarh Muslim University, 2001(8) SCC 546. WA No.181 of 2025 Page 24 of 32 10th October, 2018 can agitate that the eligibility conditions specified in the said Advertisement is not attune with educational qualification as specified in the Guidelines for conduct of Odisha Secondary School Teacher Eligibility Test issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Cuttack in consonance with the Government of Odisha in School and Mass Education Department Resolution No. 18618/VII(B)/ SME(X)- 199/2014, dated 17.09.2016. It is argued by Sri Biswa Bihari Mohanty, learned Advocate that in certain districts for the post of Hindi Teacher, the eligibility has been specified in consonance with the said Guidelines. Variation in the eligibility criteria in different districts would not allow the Appellant to raise objection particularly after participating in the process of selection and upon being declared unsuccessful. 7.1. In Ramjit Singh Kardam Vrs. Sanjeev Kumar, (2020) 7 SCR 1096, it has been succinctly held that: the criteria of selection and “37. The preposition that a candidate, who participates in a selection without a demur taking a calculated chance to get selected cannot turn around and challenge the constitution of the selection committee is well settled. The appellants have placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Madan Lal and Others Vrs. State of J&K and Others, (1995) 3 SCC 486; K.A. Nagamani Vrs. Indian Airlines and Others, (2009) 5 SCC 515; Manish Kumar Shahi Vrs. State of Bihar and Others, WA No.181 of 2025 Page 25 of 32