The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5691 of 2019 Suman Jaiswal …. -versus- Petitioner Mr. P.K. Kar, Advocate State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Jena, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 24.06.2024 14. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore respectfully prayed that your lordship would be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, issue Rule NISI by calling upon the Opposite Parties submit show cause as to why the petitioner would not be selected to the post of T.G.T Hindi by considering her degree obtained at Vinoba Bhabe University as equivalent to the Degrees of Samablpur and other Universities. If the Opposite Parties to submit cause or submit insufficient cause, then the above Rule be made absolute, with direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to appoint her as T.G.T. Hindi Teacher, like her other 66 counterparts”. failed 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued by Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya Sangathan for the post of Principal and other // 2 // Teaching posts under Annexure-3, Petitioner made her application as against the post of T.G.T (Hindi).
Legal Reasoning
4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earlier contended that in the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, the prescribed qualification for the post of T.G.T (Hindi) was B.A with Honours in any subject with Rastrabhasa Ratna from Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti, Wardha. 4.2. It is contended that Petitioner has passed B.A with Honours in History from Vinoba Bhabe University and Rastrabhasa Ratna from Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti, Wardha vide document enclosed under Annexures-1 and 2- Series. 4.3. It is contended that on receipt of her application, Petitioner when was found eligible, she was called to attend the interview on 26.07.2018 vide the call letter issued under Annexure-4-Series. 4.4. It is contended that even though Petitioner appeared the interview on the date fixed and came out successful, but when she was not provided with the engagement, she enquired about the matter. Petitioner vide Annexure-6 was intimated that her candidature has been rejected on the ground of non-submission of the equivalency certificate with regard to the qualification of B.A (Hons.) from Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag in the State of Jharkhand. Page 2 of 6 // 3 // 4.5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that though in the call letter issued under Annexure-4- Series, Petitioner was required to produce the equivalency certificate with regard to the qualification B.A (Hons.) from Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag, but Petitioner admittedly could not produce the same though the equivalency was issued by the Utkal University vide Notification dtd.26.07.2013. 4.6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that even though vide Notification issued by the University on dtd.26.07.2013 the qualification obtained by the Petitioner from Vinoba Bhave University was already declared as equivalent by Utkal University, but on mis-conception that Vinoba Bhave University since was earlier functioning under Ranchi University, Petitioner on the date of interview produced the equivalency so issued by the Sambalpur University under Annexure-7. Vide the said Notification Sambalpur University declared all the examinations conducted by Ranchi University as equivalent to that of the Sambalpur University. 4.7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner accordingly contended that since on mis-conception, Petitioner could not produce the Notification issued by the Utkal University on 26.07.2013 and in the alternate she produced the equivalency issued by Sambalpur University, her candidature could not have been rejected Page 3 of 6 // 4 // on the ground that Petitioner has failed to produce the equivalency certificate. 4.8. Basing on the instruction provided by the Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya, Sangathan on 08.05.2024, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner has secured 85 marks out of 160 in Part-II & Part-III of CBT and 27 marks out of 40 in the interview. Taking into account the mark secured by her in the examination in question, Petitioner could have got the benefit of appointment. But because of the wrong committed by her in not providing the notification issued by the Utkal University on 26.07.2013, Petitioner was deprived to get the benefit of appointment. 4.9. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction be issued to Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment taking into account the equivalency issued by the Utkal University vide Notification dtd.26.07.2013. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand while supporting the rejection made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party No.2. 5.1. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State contended that since in terms of the call letter issued under Annexure-4-Series, Petitioner on the date of Page 4 of 6 // 5 // interview could not produce the equivalency certificate with regard to the equivalency of the qualification of B.A (Hons.) History so obtained by her from Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, her candidature has been rightly rejected. 5.2. It is contended that if at all the Notification issued by the Utkal University on 26.07.2013 was available with the Petitioner she could have produced the same instead of producing the equivalency issued by the Sambalpur University under Annexure-7. However, Mr. Jena, fairly contended that Petitioner has secured the mark as contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in view of the instruction provided by Opposite Party No.2 vide letter dtd.08.05.2024. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition is of the view that Petitioner in terms of the advertisement issued by Opposite Party No.2 made her application for the post of TGT (Hindi), Petitioner as per the considered view of this Court was having the requisite qualification as on the date of making the application and accordingly she was also called to attend the interview on 26.07.2018 vide Annexure-4. 6.1. It is also found that qualification obtained by the Petitioner from Vinoba Bhave University i.e. B.A. (Hons.) Page 5 of 6 // 6 // History is declared equivalent by Utkal University vide Notification dtd. 26.07.2013, which is much prior to the date of interview. 7. In view of such analysis, this Court is inclined to direct Opposite Party No.2 to consider the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment taking into account the equivalency issued by the Utkal University on 26.07.2013 and the mark secured by the Petitioner as reflected in the letter dtd.08.05.2024 of Opposite Party No.2. Such a fresh decision as directed be taken within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. Opposite Party No.2 while taking such a decision is to take into consideration as to whether person securing less mark than the Petitioner have got the benefit of appointment and as to whether Petitioner can be provided with appointment as against any available vacancy as on date as against the post of TGT (Hindi).
Decision
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 26-Jun-2024 17:50:51 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 6 of 6