Patna High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WA No.723 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 *** 1. State of Odisha Represented by Secretary (now Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government) School and Mass Education Department, At: Lok Seva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar District: Khordha. 2. 3. The Director Secondary Education, Odisha At: Heads of Department Building, Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha. The Collector, Angul At/P.O./District: Angul. 4. District Education Officer, Angul At/P.O./District: Angul. … Appellants (Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 in the writ petition) WA No.723 of 2025 Page 1 of 36 -VERSUS- Pabitra Behera, Aged about 44 years Son of Late Dhaneswar Behera, At: Parakula, P.O.: Pikarali, P.S.: Patkura, District: Kendrapara. … Respondent (petitioner in the writ petition) Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Appellants : Mr. Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sarat Chandra Mekap, Advocate P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. HARISH TANDON AND HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing : 19.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment :14.10.2025 J UDGMENT MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.— Legality, propriety and rationality in disposing off the writ petition vide Order dated 28.11.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.24577 of 2023 by a learned Single Bench of this Court exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India quashing Order dated WA No.723 of 2025 Page 2 of 36 20.01.2023 issued by the Collector, Angul (Annexure-3 of the writ petition) and directing to appoint the respondent herein (petitioner in the writ petition) as against available vacant post, the appellants- functionaries of the Government of Odisha have preferred the intra-Court appeal provided 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. Facts leading to filing of this writ appeal are narrated infra. 2.1. In pursuance of Resolution No.23404— VIII(B)-SME-(X)- 32/2014/SME, dated 27.10.2014 issued by the School and Mass Education Department, Odisha in adherence to the General Administration Department Notification No.32010/Gen., dated 12.11.2013 and No.1147/Gen., dated 17.01.2014 read with No.4587/Gen., dated 15.02.2014, which prescribed the rules for recruitment to Group-C, D and B posts respectively, the respondent, having qualification of “Rastrabhasa Sastri” from Odisha Rastrabhasa Parisad, Puri and Bachelor Degree in Arts offered his candidature in Government High School WA No.723 of 2025 Page 3 of 36 related to the District of Angul for the post of Hindi Teacher (Contractual). 2.2. A Notice dated 04.02.2016 superscribing “for the candidates (Applicants for the Post of Contractual Teacher as per Advertisement 2014-15 (including Advertisement dated 07.01.2016)” has come to be published by the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha wherefrom it is transpired that, “1. More than 40,000 candidates applied for post of Contract Teacher in Government High Schools as per Advertisement 2014-15 (published on 23.10.2014 and 13.01.2015). Department, 2. Again pursuant to Order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the Hon‟ble Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack in O.A. No.3589 (C) of 2014 and 137 other cases and consequent upon issue of Corrigendum No.284/SME, dated 06.01.2016 by School and Mass another Education Advertisement was by Director, Secondary Education, Odisha on 07.01.206. In response to this more than 9,000 candidates have submitted online application as on 22.01.2016 (Last Date). Some of them were not eligible to apply as per conditions in Advertisemnt dated 07.01.2016 and so their applications have not been taken into consideration. laid down published Odisha, 3. Out of the candidates who applied as per the Advertisements mentioned in paragraphs (1) and (2) above, a list of candidates has been prepared whose documents shall be verified from 06.02.2016 at WA No.723 of 2025 Page 4 of 36 district level. The list will be available in the Odisha Primary Education Programme Authority website in link „Tabulation Sheet of Applications for verification of documents‟ from 06.02.2016 onwards. ***” 2.3. The representation for consideration of his case being not attended to, the respondent filed O.A. No.814 (C) of 2017 before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench which came to be disposed of with the following observation vide Order dated 21.07.2017: “Considering the submissions of both sides, and without going into the merit of the case, a copy of the paper book be sent to the respondent No.3 at the cost of the applicant with direction to treat the same as representation, consider and pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the result thereof to the applicant soon thereafter.” 2.4. The Collector, Angul in Office Order dated 21.09.2017 issued from the District Education Office, Angul, indicated having considered the case of the respondent as directed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, rejected the representation assigning following reasons: “Pursuant to the direction of the Hon‟ble Tribunal aforesaid, the Respondent No.3, i.e., Collector, Angul considered the representation of the applicant, treating the contents of the O.A. and decided as follows: WA No.723 of 2025 Page 5 of 36 That, the applicant filed the aforesaid O.A seeking direction of the Hon‟ble Tribunal to the respondent No.3, i.e., Collector Angul to consider the representation at annexure-6 for engagement of Contract Teacher in Govt. High Schools including Upgraded High Schools under Angul district in 2016. That, the applicant applied for engagement of Contract Teacher (Hindi) in Govt. High Schools including Upgraded High Schools under Angul district having qualification Bachelor Degree with Sastri from Odisha is not the Rastrabhasa Parisad, Puri which requisite qualification for engagement of Contract Teacher including Upgraded High Schools as per Govt. Resolution No. 23404, dated 27.10.2014 of S & ME Deptt. Odisha, Bhubaneswar. in Govt. High Schools (Hindi) That, the list of candidates selected for document verification along with a notice was published in OPEPA website on dt.04.02.2016 informing the candidates to get their documents verified between 06.02.2016 to 10.02.2016. An advertisement was published in local newspaper. Detailed date wise programme and venue was notified in OPEPA website. In the notice dated 04.02.2016 it was clearly mentioned in the last para that „Candidature of applicants not attending verification shall not be considered for selection process. Such applicants will forfeit their claim for the post of contract teacher‟. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the representation of the applicant, treating the contents of the O.A. deserve no consideration and is hereby rejected.” 2.5. Said decision of the Collector, Angul was carried to the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, WA No.723 of 2025 Page 6 of 36 Cuttack by way of an Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which was registered as O.A. No.3094 (C) of 2017. On the said Tribunal being abolished by virtue of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) Notification F.No. A- 11014/10/2015-AT [G.S.R. 552 (E).], dated 2nd August, 2019, said Original Application is transferred to this Court and converted to writ petition, which was renumbered as WPC (OAC) No.3094 of 2017. This Court vide Order dated 18.10.2022 while intermeddling with above order of the Collector, directed said authority to allow the respondent to get the documents verified with observation that “if on such verification it is found that the petitioner (respondent herein) possesses the requisite qualification in accordance with the qualification prescribed in the Resolution dated 27.10.2014 and if vacancies are still available in the district of Angul as against the post of Hindi Teacher, necessary steps be taken to provide the appointment to the petitioner as against any such vacant post”. 2.6. Though the respondent was called for verification of documents on 15.11.2022, the candidature of the respondent was rejected vide Office Order No.534, dated 20.01.2023 by the Collector, Angul with the following observation and reason(s): WA No.723 of 2025 Page 7 of 36 “Whereas the copy of online application submitted by the petitioner for the post of Contract Teacher has been verified and detected that he was having the following qualification with percentage of marks as indicated against each degree: Name of the qualification Total marks secured as mentioned by the petitioner in the application Total marks secured as ascertained at the time of verification Actual percentage of marks HSC +2 Arts B.A. Rastrabhasa Sastri 317 324 432 674 317 324 432 510 42.26 36 36 63.75 Whereas on verification of documents in support of the qualifications acquired and marks secured by petitioner in different degrees it is observed that the petitioner is ineligible for the post of Hindi Teacher (Contractual) for the following reasons so far as provisions as contained is concerned: in Resolution dated 27.10.2014 i) ii) The petitioner‟s case is coming under Category-I partly as he is not having training qualification. to possess 50% marks In order to be eligible under Category-I a candidate in has Graduation as well as in Rastrabhasa Ratna or Sastri or Snataka (45% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates). In the instant case, the petitioner being in aggregate WA No.723 of 2025 Page 8 of 36 a SC candidate has to secure 45% or more marks both in Graduation and Sastri. But his percentage of marks in aggregate in Graduation is below 45%. Therefore, after careful examination of all facts, it is concluded that the claim of the petitioner for engagement as Hindi Teacher (Contractual) merits no consideration and hence rejected.” 2.7. Assailing the refusal to accede to the claim of the respondent for engagement as Hindi Teacher (Contractual), a writ petition, registered as W.P.(C) No.24577 of 2023, was filed. Said writ petition was
Decision
disposed of vide Order dated 28.11.2024 by the learned Single Bench with the following observation(s): “*** 3. *** The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging Order dated 20.01.2023 so passed by the Collector, Angul-opposite party No.3 under Annexure-3. Vide the said order claim of the petitioner for being appointed as a Hindi Teacher pursuant to the Advertisement issued on 27.10.2014 for the year 2014-15 has been rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court on 18.10.2022 in WPC (OAC) No.3094 of 2017, Opp. Party No.3 allowed the Petitioner to verify his documents. But claim of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that Petitioner WA No.723 of 2025 Page 9 of 36 has not secured the required 45% mark in his Graduation. 6.1. This Court after going through the mark sheet available under Annexure-9 finds that Petitioner has secured 428 marks out of 700 marks in his Shastri is equivalent to +3. Since Examination, which Petitioner has secured more than 61% in his Graduation, the ground on which claim of the Petitioner has been rejected, as per the considered view of this Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.20.01.2023 so issued by Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-3. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party No.3 to provide appointment to the Petitioner as against any available vacancy and allow him to undergo the training in terms of the order passed by this Court in the above noted two (2) cases 1 . This Court directs Opp. Party No.3 to complete the entire exercise within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.” 2.8. Dissatisfied thereby, the appellants-functionaries of the Government of Odisha have filed the instant writ appeal. Hearing: 3. 1 The writ appeal challenging the Order dated 28.11.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.24577 of 2023 has been preferred Nihar Ranjan Sarangi Vrs. State of Odisha and others, WPC (OAC) No.1976 of 2015, disposed of on 23rd July, 2021 and Satyabrata Nayak and others Vrs. State of Odisha and others, WPC (OAC) No.902 of 2016, disposed of on 15th September, 2021. WA No.723 of 2025 Page 10 of 36 with a delay, which was condoned by this Court vide Order dated 18.06.2025. Accordingly, it was directed to be posted 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 “Rastrabhasa Sastri” qualification is to be considered equivalent to Bachelor‟s Degree (+3/B.A.) so as to construe that the respondent has requisite qualification with adequate percentage of marks in aggregate so that his eligibility can be examined for the post of Hindi Teacher (Contractual). 3.2. Accordingly, heard Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants and Sri Sarat Chandra Mekap, learned Advocate representing the respondent. Rival contentions and submissions: 4. Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate drew attention of this Court to the Resolution No. VIII(B)SME-(X)-32/2014/23404/SME, dated 27.10.2014 issued by the Government of Odisha in School and Mass Education Department to assert the stand of the appellants that for being considered for the post of Hindi Teacher (Contractual), mere having more than 50% (Unreserved candidates) or 45% WA No.723 of 2025 Page 11 of 36 (SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) marks in aggregate would not suffice, but the candidate was required to secure more than such percentage of marks in Bachelor‟s Degree. He, justifying the Order dated 20th January, 2023 passed by the Collector, Angul, supported the reasons ascribed therein to reject the representation of the respondent. 4.1. He would, therefore, submit that the respondent had acquired B.A. Degree without Hindi as an elective subject having secured less than 45% of marks. This apart, the respondent, a candidate for the post of Hindi Teacher (Contractual) against the Scheduled Caste category, having not secured more than 45% of marks in “Graduation and Sastri”, inasmuch as “Rastrabhasa Sastri” qualification being not sole eligibility condition, no infirmity could have been imputed against the order of rejection of the representation. 4.2. Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate advanced contention that the respondent was not eligible for being considered for the post of Hindi Teacher (Contractual) as Rastrabhasa Sastri qualification at no stretch of imagination be treated as equivalent to Bachelor‟s Degree as the Government of Odisha has not declared such qualification as having equivalence. Expanding his argument he submitted that the learned Single Bench relying on two cases, i.e., Nihar WA No.723 of 2025 Page 12 of 36 Ranjan Sarangi Vrs. State of Odisha and others, WPC (OAC) No.1976 of 2015, disposed of on 23rd July, 20212 and Satyabrata Nayak and others Vrs. State of Odisha and others, WPC (OAC) No.902 of 2016, disposed of on 15th September, 20213, directed the appellants to allow the respondent to undergo training and provide appointment against any available vacancy fell in error. The issue raised in the writ petition (WP(C) No.24577 of 2023) is not similar to the cases of Nihar Ranjan Sarangi (supra) and Satyabrata Nayak (Supra). 4.3. Beseeching indulgence in this matter, Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate, insisted for setting aside the Order dated 28.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(C) No.24577 of 2023 and restore the Office Order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the Collector, Angul. 2 3 The matter was carried by the Government of Odisha in intra-Court appeal under the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna being registered as W.A. No.1028 of 2022, which was dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay of 340 days in preferring the writ appeal. The matter is now before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).22758 of 2024, wherein the following Order has been passed on 11.07.2024: “Delay condoned. Ms. Anindita Pujari, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that notice in a similar matter [SLP(C) Diary No.21956/2024] pertaining to Hindi Teacher is pending consideration before this Court. Issue notice. Tag with SLP(C) Diary No.21956/2024.” The matter was carried by the Government of Odisha in intra-Court appeal under the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna being registered as W.A No.557 of 2022. Having condoned the delay in preferring said writ appeal, the Division Bench of this Court passed following Order on 15.09.2022: “7. There shall be stay of the impugned order dated 15th September, 2021 passed in WPC (OAC) No.902 of 2016 by the learned Single Judge during the pendency of this appeal.” WA No.723 of 2025 Page 13 of 36 5. Sri Sarat Chandra Mekap, learned Advocate, per contra, made valiant attack on the contentions raised by the appellants and reasserted his stand by stating that the respondent has secured 428 marks out of 700 marks in Shastri Examination, which is equivalent to +3/B.A. (Bachelor‟s Degree). Having secured 63.75% marks, i.e., more than 45% in Shastri Examination, which fact remained undisputed by the appellants, the rejection of the claim of the respondent vide impugned order of the Collector, Angul on the specious plea that he has not secured more than 45% in his Graduation cannot be held to be tenable in the eye of law. 5.1. It is submitted that the respondent has “Bachelor Degree from a recognized university” “with Sastri from Odisha Rastrabhasa Parisad, Puri”. Having satisfied twin condition as is required under Resolution dated 27.10.2014, the approach of the Collector, Angul is without proper comprehension. 5.2. Advancing further argument, it is vehemently contested that even though the respondent at the relevant point of time was an untrained hand, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Nihar Ranjan Sarangi Vs. State of Odisha & Ors., WPC (OAC) No.1976 of 2015, he is entitled to be consideration for the post of Hindi Teacher (Contractual). This Court vide Order dated 23.07.2021 has observed that such untrained candidates shall also WA No.723 of 2025 Page 14 of 36 be appointed by providing them opportunity to acquire the training. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly referred to Paragraph 7 of the said order, which reads as follows: “7. On reading of the aforesaid clear provision made in the resolution to make a candidate eligible to apply for the post of Contractual Hindi Teacher in the Govt. Secondary Schools in 2014-15, this Court finds, is prescription of so many qualifications there prescribed therein for one becoming eligible to apply against the post of Contractual Hindi Teacher and one of such qualification is, one must be having Bachelor‟s degree from a recognized University with Hindi as one of the elective subject with minimum in case of in aggregate and 50% marks SC/ST/PH/OBC/S.E.B.C minimum 45% marks in from aggregate or with Rastrabhasa Ratna Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti, Wardha or with Sastri from Orissa Rastrabhasa Parisada, Puri or with Snataka (Acquired by June-2005, the date up to which the temporary recognition has been granted) from Hindi Sikshya Samiti, Orissa, Cuttack. This being the required qualification; on reading of the counter affidavit this Court finds, there is no dispute as to the Petitioner having a Bachelor‟s degree from a recognized university for Hindi Teacher by way of Rastravasa Shastri under the Odisha Rastravasa Parisad, Jagarnath Dham, Puri and on entire reading of the clause 3(f) this Court nowhere finds the requirement of Hindi training qualification for Hindi Teacher. Further for the bracket portion below the condition 3(f) providing opportunity to provide training after being eligible/qualified, the stand of WA No.723 of 2025 Page 15 of 36 is to in question the department that there was requirement for training, remains unfounded. In such view of the matter, this Court finds, the stand taken by the contesting Opposite Parties remains wholly contrary to the condition at clause 3(f) in the resolution vide Annexure-4. It is, in this view of the matter, this Court finds, the ground of not selecting the Petitioner is not germane to the condition imposed in the resolution vide Annexure-4. As a consequence this Court finds, not selecting the Petitioner for the post of the Contractual Hindi Teacher pursuant advertisement illegal. Since the Petitioner was fulfilling all the required qualification in the post of Contractual Hindi Teacher for Government Schools in 2014-15 pursuant to the resolution vide Annexure-4, this Court directs, in the event the Petitioner fulfills other conditions, the competent authority to draw a fresh select list of Contractual Hindi Teacher in Government Schools pursuant to the advertisement in question forthwith, preferably within a period one month and in the event the name of the Petitioner finds place within the required candidate, the Petitioner shall be appointed against the said post. In the event there is possibility of disturbing any of the selected person, such person may be provided with opportunity. For the Petitioner going to get the benefit through this judgment and as the litigation process involving the Petitioner continued for over six years, this Court further directs, in the event the Petitioner gets appointment on re-drawl of fresh selection list, the Petitioner be treated to have been recruited in the post of Contractual Hindi Teacher in the year 2014- 15 and so far as arrear is concerned, it shall be other notionally. However, calculated the WA No.723 of 2025 Page 16 of 36 the similarly situated to entitlements provided persons during this period shall be calculated for the purpose of fixation of scale of pay of the Petitioner presently and this period will also be calculated for the purpose of pensionary benefit, if any.” 5.3. Sri Sarat Chandra Mekap, learned Advocate referred to following view expressed in the Judgment dated 15.09.2021 rendered in WPC (OAC) No. 902 of 2016 & batch (Satyabrata Nayak & Ors. Vs. State of Odisha & Ors.): “8. On perusal of the qualification prescribed for Hindi Teacher, as mentioned above, it appears that only eligible candidates can make application for consideration of Contract Teacher (Hindi) pursuant to advertisement issued for the year 2014-15. Clause- 3(f) of the advertisement which has been placed in the bracket makes it clear that the untrained candidates shall have to undergo required training within the timeline as prescribed by Government. Thereby, necessary implication of incorporating this clause clearly indicates that though qualification has been prescribed as eligibility criteria for making an application, the untrained candidates can also make an application but they have to undergo required training within the timeline as prescribed by the Government. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have got requisite qualification for appointment as Contract Teacher (Hindi). But only difficulty is that they had not acquired the training qualification by the time they submitted the application, though they had undergone training and result thereof was not published. After submission of applications when WA No.723 of 2025 Page 17 of 36 or training produced certificates, qualification in view of result was published, before their applications were taken into consideration, even though they produced their the applications were rejected stating that “B.Ed. after 06.04.2015” after “certificate 06.04.2015”. The grounds for rejection of their applications cannot sustain, the stipulation made in clause-3(f) of the resolution dated 27.10.2014. If untrained candidates can have right to make application and subsequently they can undergo required training within the timeline as prescribed by the Government, submission of their applications even as untrained candidates, cannot be said to be faulted with. Rather, their applications should have been considered as untrained candidates for selection to the post of Contract Teacher (Hindi) and they should have been allowed to undergo required training within the timeline as prescribed by the Government. As such, the present petitioners stand on a better footing in accordance with the stipulation made in clause-3(f) of the thereby, even resolution 27.10.2014. Meaning though they had applied as untrained candidates and undergone training, but result thereof was not their they submitted published by their applications. But before consideration of the they had already acquired applications, qualification of their training and, applications should not and could not have been the authority stating “B.Ed. after rejected by after 06.04.2015” “certificate 06.04.2015” and, as such, disqualifying them from participating in the process of selection is absolutely non application of mind by the authority and produced thereby, time the or WA No.723 of 2025 Page 18 of 36 unwarranted. Similar view has already been taken by this Court in Nihar Ranjan Sarangi (supra).” 5.4. It is, accordingly, strenuously urged that since the respondent has secured the required percentage of marks in “Rastrabhasa Sastri” which is equivalent to Graduation, and in view of the decisions rendered by this Court in the above noted cases, the Office Order dated 20.01.2023 of the Collector, Angul, being vulnerable, the same is rightly interfered with by the learned Single Judge. 5.5. Therefore, he submitted that the Order dated 28.11.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.24577 of 2023 does not warrant indulgence in the present intra-Court appeal. Discussions and analysis: 6. As is apparent from bare perusal of Office Order dated 20.01.2023 of the Collector, Angul rejecting the representation, the respondent is held to be ineligible for the post of Hindi Teacher (Contractual) on the ground that he has no training qualification and he, a candidate in the category of Schedule Caste, has secured less than 45% of marks in aggregate in the Bachelor‟s Degree Examination. It is bone of contention that though in B.A. (+3) the respondent has secured 36% of marks in aggregate, as he secured 63.75% (Actual percentage of marks vide Table given in the Order dated 20.01.2023 of WA No.723 of 2025 Page 19 of 36 the Collector, Angul) in “Rastrabhasa Sastri”, which is claimed to be equivalent to Bachelor‟s Degree qualification, the same should have been considered for the purpose of ascertaining eligibility for the post of Hindi Teacher (Contractual). 6.1. This Court was taken to a letter of the Utkal University issued through Deputy Registrar (Special Cell) vide document dated 31.07.2012. In the said document it is declared as follows: “Utkal University Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar – 751004 Equivalence of Degrees Sl. No. * * 164. Name of the University Equivalence was made for Alankar Hindi 1st, 2nd, 3rd year of Gurukul in +3 Kanderi Viswavidyalaya degree Hindi Degrees of the University * With +3 Hindi (Pass) of Utkal University (2) (3) Equivalence was made Rastrabhasa Ratna and Snatak for With +3 Pass and Elective Hindi only Equivalence was made for B.H.Ed. of Utkal University With B.Ed. of Utkal University * * * 168. Odisha Rastrabasa Parisada, Puri Rastrabasa Sastri +3 Hindi with Pass * * *” 6.2. Another Notification dated 28th October, 2011 issued by the Utkal University notified as follows: WA No.723 of 2025 Page 20 of 36 “Notification No.A.C. Equi/50(A)(P)/50994/2011, dated 28.10.2011 Name of the University Sl. No. * * 5. Odisha Rastrabasa Parisad, Puri Degree equivalent with Utkal University * Rastrabasa Sastri with +3 Hindi Pass * * *” 6.3. The Government of India, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare (Department of Education), New Delhi, in Letter dated 26.07.1979 recognised Hindi Examination as follows: “Subject: Recognition of Hindi Examination conducted by Voluntary Hindi Organisations Sir, I am directed to convey the approval of the Government of India to the extensions of the present period of recognitions to the following examinations conducted by the Voluntary Hindi Organisations for the period shown against each: Name of the Organisation Name of the Examination Standard of Hindi prescribed in the equivalent Examination Orissa Rastrabhasa Parisad, Puri 1. Vinod 2. Praveen 3. Shastri SLC Inter B.A. Period upto which recognition granted Permanent” 6.4. This Court is persuaded to have regard to the view expressed in the case of Smruti Rekha Mishra Vrs. State WA No.723 of 2025 Page 21 of 36 of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.41672 of 2021, vide Order dated 06.01.20224 wherein it has been held as follows: “8. 9. *** So far the issue of degree of Sastri by Odisha Rastrabhasa Parishad, Puri is concerned, the same is no more res-integra. The Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar while adjudicating O.A. No.1090 of 2016 was also required to adjudicate the above noted issue. Vide Order dated 24th May, 2019 passed in O.A.No.1090 2016 the Orissa Administrative Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the degree of Sastri from Odisha Rastrabhasa Parishad, Puri along with Bachelor Degree and M.A. in Hindi constitutes sufficient eligibility for being appointed to the post of Contractual Hindi Teacher. Principal Tribunal, The Order dated 24th May, 2019 passed by Orissa Administrative Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A.No.1090 of 2016 was assailed by the State Government before this Court in W.P.(C) No.10616 of 2020. This Court vide Order dated 7th September, 2020 has confirmed the order the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, of Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar. 4 Reported at 2022 (I) ILR-CUT 219. The matter was carried by the Government of Odisha in intra-Court appeal under the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna being registered as W.A. No.890 of 2022, which was dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay of 149 days in preferring the writ appeal. The matter is now before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).18318 of 2024, wherein the following Order has been passed on 12.07.2024: “1. 2. Delay condoned. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that notice in a similar matter [SLP(C) Diary No.21956 of 2024] pertaining to Hindi Teacher is pending consideration before this Court. Issue notice. Tag with SLP(C) Diary No. 21956 of 2024.” 3. WA No.723 of 2025 Page 22 of 36 *** 12. In the meanwhile, the State Government challenged the order dated 7th September 2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.10616 of 2020 before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India by filing SLP(C) No.195-196 of 2021. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by order dated 20th January, 2021 disposed of the SLP thereby the order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal has been confirmed and the said order has attained finality.” 6.5. Under such premise and in presence of loud and clear enunciation of position with respect to declaration of equivalence of educational qualification, the marks awarded to the respondent could not have been ignored while preparing the list of candidates. The appellants, therefore, fell in gross error in not taking into consideration the percentage of marks obtained in Sastri Examination while computing the aggregate percentage of marks. The stance of the appellants that the respondent has not secured requisite percentage of marks is fallacious as such a view runs counter to the declaration of different competent authorities supported by the decisions of the Courts. 7. It is pertinent at this juncture to have discussion on a Resolution of the Government of Odisha in School and Mass Education Department bearing No. 23395-VIII-(B)- SME-(X)-231/2014/SME, dated 27.10.2014, dissection of which would depict as follows: WA No.723 of 2025 Page 23 of 36 The S&ME Department have prescribed the common qualification of Hindi Teachers in Government, Fully Aided and Block Grant High Schools vide Resolution No. 3424, dated the 18th February, 2008, No. 7685, dated 12th May, 2009, No. 6552, dated 29.03.2011 and Addendum No. 25114/SME, dated 03.10.2012. In spite of the above 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. therefore, the Government careful Now, consideration of the matter have decided to prescribe the qualification of Hindi Teachers in the following order of preference for providing quality and better education to the students. after Bachelor‟s degree from a recognized University with Hindi as one the elective subject with minimum 50% marks in aggregate (45% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) or with Rastrabhasa Ratna from Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti, Wardha or with Sastri from Orissa Rastrabhasa Parisada, Puri or with Snataka (Acquired by June-2005, the date up to which the temporary recognition has been granted) from Hindi Sikshaya Samiti, Orissa, Cuttack or an equivalent degree from a recognized institution with at least for in SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates and Hindi Sikshyan 50% marks aggregate (45% WA No.723 of 2025 Page 24 of 36 Parangat from Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra/B.H.Ed (a course prescribed by NCTE) from a Institution recognized by NCTE and affiliated to a recognized university/B.Ed. in Hindi (a course prescribed by NCTE) from Dakhin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras, a institution recognized by NCTE and affiliated to a recognized university, OR Bachelor‟s Degree with Hindi as one of the optional/Hons. (45% for subject with 50% of marks SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) from a recognized University and MA. in Hindi with minimum 50% marks in aggregate from a recognized University. in aggregate The untrained candidates shall have to undergo the required training within a stipulated period as decided by Govt. from time to time. The S&ME Deptt. Resolution No. 6552/SME, dated 29.03.2011 is modified to the above extent. This will come into force with immediate effect. 7.1. Ordinarily, the words „and‟ and „or‟ are interpreted in a conjunctive and disjunctive manner. Wherever statutory provisions contained the word „and‟, it connotes a conjunctive aspect. If different situations and/or eventualities are added with the word „and‟, it normally be construed as the situation and/or eventualities which must co-exist. 7.2. The word „and‟ is commonly used to bind two situations and/or eventualities, and therefore, an interpretation WA No.723 of 2025 Page 25 of 36 other than what is commonly understood is only possible if it frustrates the intention and the object for which the said Act was enacted or the subordinate legislation is framed. For such reason, at times the word „and‟ and „or‟ are inter-changeable depending upon the intention of the Legislature in tune with the object and purpose, for which it is so legislated. 7.3. In the case of CIT Vrs. Puthu Thotam Estates (1943) Limited, (1981) 127 ITR 481 (Mad), it has been observed as follows: “The circumstances under which the word “and” may be construed as “or” and vice versa should be somewhat rare. Otherwise, if the two are taken to be interchangeable terms, then it would result in Parliament throwing into the statute the two expressions indiscriminately and leave them to the courts to sort out the meaning. In ordinary usage „„and‟‟ in conjunctive and „„or‟‟ is disjunctive, but to carry out the intention of the legislature it is sometimes possible to take “and” for “or” and vice versa. But such occasions should be rare and should only be to avoid absurd consequences that would follow if the words are taken in their literal meaning.” 7.4. It is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that the word “or” is normally disjunctive and the word “and” is normally conjunctive. Both of them can be read as vice-versa, but that interpretation is adopted only where the intention of the legislature is manifest. Where provision is clear and unambiguous the word „or‟ cannot be read as „and‟ by applying the WA No.723 of 2025 Page 26 of 36 principle of reading down. But if the literal reading of the words produces an unintelligible or absurd result „and‟ may be read for „or‟ and „or‟ for „and‟ even though the result of so modifying the words is less favourable to the subject provided that the intention of the Legislature is otherwise quite clear. Conversely if reading of „and‟ and „or‟ produces grammatical distortion and makes no sense of the portion following „and‟, „or‟ cannot be read in place of „and‟. The alternatives joined by „or‟ need not always be mutually exclusive. [Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences Vrs. Bikartan Das, (2023) 11 SCR 731 = 2023 INSC 733; State of Bombay Vrs. RMD Chamarbaugwala, (1957) 1 SCR 874; J. Jayalalitha Vrs. Union of India, (1999) 5 SCC 138; Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vrs. CIT & Excess Profits Tax, (1959) 1 SCR 848; Spentex Industries Ltd. Vrs. CCE, (2015) 11 SCR 487]. 7.5. In Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Product Vrs. Union of