The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No. 4565 of 2019 An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. -------------- Gangarapu Brundavati ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case :- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. A.K. Pandey, D.N. Mishra, P.K. Samal & P.K. Jena, Advocates For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, [Addl. Government Advocate] _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA J U D G M E N T 11.04.2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Collector, Gajapati and the consequential letter dated 18.09.2018 passed by the District Project Coordinator, SSA, Gajapati in disengaging her as Swechasevi Sikhya Sahayak (SSS) as also the order Page 1 of 10 dated 19.01.2019 passed by the Secretary to Government the Department of School and Mass Education Department in rejecting her claim to reappoint her. 2.
Facts
The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner applied for engagement as Swechasevi Sikhya Sahayak (SSS) pursuant to advertisement issued on 25.03.2003. Her name did not figure in the merit list for which she could not be engaged. 2.1 On 26.09.2003, as per instructions issued by the Secretary in the Department of School and Mass Education, the District Collectors, prepared list of eligible candidates for recruitment of 15682 SSS, out of the pending applications received pursuant to the aforementioned advertisement. The petitioner’s name found place in the merit list and accordingly she was selected, engaged and joined as Shikshya Sahayak in Karnibhadra U.P. School under Kashinagar Block. 2.2 The decision of the government as above was challenged by some persons before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11748 of 2003 (Hrushikesh Bindhani and Others Page 2 of 10 v. State of Odisha). This Court, by order dated 29.04.2004 quashed the order dated 26.09.2003 by holding that engagement of SSS without advertisement was null and void and further directed the authorities to make fresh advertisement. The petitioner and other similarly placed persons were at liberty to apply. 3. Pursuant to such order, the Director of Elementary Education published an advertisement on 15.08.2004 for 17000 posts in all districts of the State. Though 513 posts were sanctioned for Gajapati district and selection process was taken up but, it was discontinued because of stay order passed by this Court. Till such time, 338 nos. of SSS from different categories had been engaged. 4. After vacation of stay on 22.11.2003, 459 nos. of SSS were engaged, out of whom, 338 were engaged before 26.09.2003 and 121, after 26.09.2003. In view of subsequent clarification issued regarding 235 untrained SC/ST SSS engaged after 26.09.2003, it was held that 72 SSS will not find place in the merit list along with 17 SSS, Page 3 of 10 who had not applied. As a whole, 89 SSS were excluded among whom the petitioner was placed at serial No.11. By letter dated 25.10.2006, the Collector published the list of ineligible candidates including the name of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (C) No.11276 of 2011 challenging the same. This Court by order dated 11.12.2015 remanded the matter to the authorities to take a decision after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It was also provided that since the persons are continuing on the‘ strength of interim order dated 18.08.2006 they will continue in service till final decision is taken by the authorities. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her representation before the Secretary, who authorized the Director, Elementary Education to hear the matter. 6. The Director conducted hearing and as the petitioner could not produce certain documents, the Director requested the Government that the Collector, may be authorized to conduct enquiry afresh and decide the matter. Accordingly, the Government authorized the Page 4 of 10 Collector to take a decision. The petitioner submitted a representation before the Collector on 10.3.2018. The Collector, after hearing the parties on 10.09.2018 rejected the representation and directed immediate disengagement of 89 SSS including the petitioner. Accordingly by order dated 11.09.2018, the petitioner was directed to be disengaged. 7. The petitioner again submitted representation on 18.09.2018 before the Secretary. The Secretary, after considering the representation rejected the same by order dated 19.01.2019. 8. It is contended that taking note of the fact that persons like the petitioner had rendered more than 10 years of service in different schools, OPEPA, by letter dated 31.01.2014, requested the Government to seek the views of the Law Department as to if they could be regularized. This aspect was not taken into consideration either by the Collector or the Secretary. Further,
Legal Reasoning
notwithstanding the judgment of this Court in Hrusikesh Bindhani (supra), fact remains that the petitioner, while Page 5 of 10 continuing as SSS was sent for CT training as an in- service candidate and also passed CT examination in the year 2013 and thereafter worked as CT trained teacher till her disengagement. It is further submitted that 43 SSS have been allowed to continue, out of 52 SS similarly placed as the petitioner. On the above facts, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief:-
Decision
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordhsip’s may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition. And issue of direction(s) or order(s) to set aside the order dtd.10.09.2018 passed by the Opp. Party No.3 in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2018 (arising out of order dtd. 11.12.2015 passed by the Hon’ble in W.P.(C) No. 11276 of 2008 under Court annexure-13) and letter No. consequential 2452/Esst.18 dtd. 18.09.2018 passed by the Opp. Party No.4 under annexure-15 and direct the Opp. Parties to re-engage the petitioner for the post of Sikhya Sahayak in the school of PUPS Nilakanthapur under Kashinagar Block of Gajapati district. And further direct the opp. Parties to regularize the service period of the petitioner and release all financial service benefits within a stipulated time period; And pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Page 6 of 10 And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound every pray.” 9. Stand of the State is that admittedly the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the decision taken by the government on 26.09.2003, which has since been held to be bad in law and quashed by this Court in the case of Hrushikesh Bindhani (supra). Notwithstanding such fact, the petitioner was allowed to continue by virtue of interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11276 of 2008. The claim of the petitioner was rejected having regard to the ratio decided in Hrushikesh Bindhani (supra). It is further stated that acquiring CT qualification as in-service candidate is of no consequence, since as long as she was in service, it was necessary as per the mandate of the Right to Education Act, 2009. The petitioner’s representations have been disposed of by the concerned authorities by passing reasoned orders. As regards the persons still in service, it is stated that the same is on the strength of interim orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions filed by them. The petitioner cannot claim parity with them. Page 7 of 10 10. Heard Mr. A.K.Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner was unsuccessful in the selection held pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.03.2003. He was selected in the second phase on the basis of order dated 26.09.2003, which was subsequently quashed by this Court in the case of Hrushikesh Bindhani (supra) and the engagements made in pursuance thereof were held null and void. The petitioner participated in the fresh selection process but was not successful. Therefore, her initial engagement cannot be treated as valid in any manner. Though she continued till 2013, same was on the basis of interim order passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by her earlier. Such continuance cannot confer validity on an otherwise invalid selection. Under such circumstances, rejection of her representations by the Collector as well as the Secretary can hardly be faulted with. Page 8 of 10 12. It has been urged that taking note of the plight of persons like the petitioner who rendered useful service to the State, notwithstanding the judgment passed in Hrushikesh Bindhani (supra), a recommendation was made by OPEPA to the Government to consider their case for regularization in consultation with the Law Department. Reliance in this regard is placed on letter dated 31.01.2014 of the State Project Director, OPEPA, wherein the following was recommended:- “Since these SSS have rendered more than 10 years of service in different schools and keeping in view their long tenure of experience in teaching at primary and elementary schools, the service of these SSS may be regularized subject to their completion of training. In this connection views of Law Deptt. may be obtained to avoid any legal complicacy in future.” 13. It is however not forthcoming as to what decision was ultimately taken on such recommendation by the Government. Nevertheless, it does highlight that the plight of persons like the petitioner, who were then faced with the imminent threat of loss of their livelihood, was acknowledged by some quarters within the government. Page 9 of 10 14. It has been further urged that 43 persons, out of 52 similarly placed persons, are still in service. But then, their continuance, as stated by the State Counsel, is on the basis of interim orders. The petitioner cannot claim any parity in this regard. It would however be a different matter, if the government ultimately decides to regularize the services of said 43 persons. If and when such decision is taken, the petitioner can always put forth his claim for parity. 15. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds that the case of the petitioner being squarely covered by the judgment of Hrushikesh Bindhani (supra), the relief claimed by her cannot be granted. The writ petition is however, disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to claim parity if a favourable decision is taken in respect of the 43 similarly placed Shikshya Sahayaks who are still continuing in service on the strength of interim orders. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 14-Apr-2025 15:42:58 Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 11th April , 2025/ B.C. Tudu ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Page 10 of 10