The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4334 of 2016 Benudhar Behera and others …. Petitioners Mr. S.K. Samal, Advocate -versus-
Legal Reasoning
State of Odisha & others Mr. P.K.Panda, …. Opposite Parties Addl. Standing Counsel (S and M.E Deptt.) CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 06.2.2023. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department. 3. The Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief; “Admit the Writ Petition. Call for the records. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any order/orders, other direction/directions directing the opposite parties to accept the petitioners in shape of hard copy and consider appropriate writ/writs, the application forms from Page 1 of 5 // 2 // their candidature along with other eligible candidates for post of Sikshya Sahayak pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.9.2014 and the corrigendum dated 9.2.2016 under Annexure-4 and further be pleased to direct the opposite parties that in the event the petitioners are selected, they may be given engagement as Sikshya Sahayak and all benefits may be extended to them within a reasonable period of time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.” 4. An advertisement was published on 11th September, 2014 for engagement of Sikshya Sahayak. At that time the Petitioners were over aged as the upper age limit was 32 years. By means of a corrigendum issued on 9th February, 2016 the upper age limit was enhanced from 32 years to 42 years. As such, the Petitioners became eligible since they had acquired B.Ed. qualification prior to the advertisement and also acquired OTET qualification prior to the date of issuance of corrigendum. Their applications, submitted Online, were not accepted on the ground that the same was beyond the cut-off date as mentioned in the original advertisement. Challenging such non-acceptance of their Online applications, the Petitioners have approached this Court. 5. By order dated 11th March, 2016, this Court passed the following order; “Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Bisoi, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department. Issue notice. Page 2 of 5 // 3 // Requisitions for issuance of notice to Opp. Parties by Speed Post with A.D.be filed within a week. The notice shall be made returnable within two weeks. Put up this case immediately after service of notice. In the interim, it is directed that the Opp. Parties should accept the hard copies of the application forms of the Petitioners for the post to of Sikshya Sahayaks with corrigendum No.1297/Estt/16 dated 9.2.2016 issued under Annexure-5 and to allow them to participate in the selection process. However, their result should be kept in sealed cover and should not be declared without the leave of this Court.” reference 6. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 under Paragraph-11 that in due compliance of the said order, the Opposite Parties have acted accordingly and as per the choice and preference opted by the Petitioners in their hard copies, the concerned D.P.Cs. have been requested to take necessary steps for compliance of this Court’s order. It is stated that the applications and the results of the selection in respect of the Petitioners are kept in sealed covers. In the mean time, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.102/2016 has held that the last date of receiving applications as per the corrigendum shall be the relevant date for persons becoming qualified to apply pursuant to the said corrigendum. The observations of the Division Bench under Paragraphs 15,16,17 and 18 are relevant, which are quoted below; Page 3 of 5 // 4 // “15. In view of the settled legal position explained in the above decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court is not able to accept the plea of the S & ME Department that the requisite qualification of OTET- II was not possessed by these Appellants as of the last date for filing of the applications in terms of the advertisement read with corrigendum. 16. Even the plea that the corrigendum relates back to the original advertisement overlooks the fact that as far as the present Appellants are concerned, they became qualified to apply only because of the relaxation of the upper age limit pursuant to the orders of this Court as explained hereinbefore. In other words, it is only by virtue of corrigendum that the Appellants came to apply for the post. If the corrigendum were to relate back to the original date, they would not even be qualified to apply. Therefore, as far as the three Appellants are concerned, it cannot be said that the relevant date for determining whether the Appellants possess the requisite qualification has to be the original date of 30th September 2014. It has to be the revised date in terms of the corrigendum. 17. The settled legal position being that in the absence of Rules, the last date of submission of the application would be the relevant date as far as obtaining the qualification concerned, in the present case, that date would be 28th February, 2016. Clearly, by that date, each of the three Appellants had acquired the requisite OTET-II qualification. Page 8 of 8 18. For all of the aforementioned reasons, this Court is unable to agree with the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge in is the accordingly hereby set aside. The writ appeal is disposed of with a direction to the S & ME Department to issue appointment letters to the three Appellants as Junior Teacher (Contractual) [which impugned order. The impugned order Page 4 of 5 // 5 // is what the post of SS has been renamed as], within a period of eight weeks. It is made clear that the Appellants would not be entitled to any arrears of pay.” In view of the clear pronouncement of law as indicated above, it is evident that the Petitioners’ claim for acceptance of their applications is fully justified. 7. In such view of the matter as also the fact the Petitioners were permitted to participate in the selection process, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the Opposite Party- authorities to open the sealed covers containing the result of the selection of the Petitioners and to act accordingly. Necessary decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of four weeks. (Sashikanta Mishra) AKB Judge Page 5 of 5