The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO.15973 OF 2025 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. -------------- Smt. Sandhyarani Mishra …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha, represented through Commissioner-Cum- Secretary to Government, School & Mass Education Department & Others …. Opposite Parties Advocates Appeared in this case For Petitioner - M/s. M. Panigrahi, R.K. Sarangi, A. Dash & S.N. Pradhan, S.L. Padhi & S.R. Lenka, Advocates
Legal Reasoning
For Opp. Parties - Mr. Saroj Kumar Jee, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM --- MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment : 08.12.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 of 8 PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J. The essential grievance of the petitioner is as to denial of antedating of her regularisation, vide Order No. 2151/SME dated 24.01.2025, on the following three grounds: (i) Several litigations having taken place at the instance of the petitioner and she having accepted her engagement as such, she cannot claim anything beyond that. (ii) Petitioner has not put in eight years of continuous service as Gana Sikshyak, which condition is mandatory. (iii) Petitioner lacked O.T.E.T., which is a pre-condition for engagement. 2. Submissions of Petitioner’s Counsel: (i) Petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.18440 of 2013 disposed off by a Co-ordinate Bench on 04.05.2016, whereby the District Collector was directed to hold the enquiry into her grievance and that enquiry proved fruitful. She had filed W.P.(C) No.24204 of 2021 that was disposed off by another Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 01.09.2021 directing consideration of her grievance at the hands of D.P.C., which eventually went against her later. That led to petitioner filing yet another case in W.P.(C) No.11134 of 2023, which was Page 2 of 8 disposed off on 18.04.2023 by another Co-ordinate Bench remanding the matter for fresh consideration at the hands of Secretary of the Department concerned. (ii) When the District Collector in the report dated 31.01.2019 had specifically favoured claim of the petitioner finding fault with the version of the Officers, the full benefit of the said order ought to have been given to his client. Denial of such a benefit virtually prevented the petitioner from putting in eight years of service and therefore, the authorities cannot take the benefit of their own wrong to the prejudice of the citizen. (iii) Whatever order has been issued to his client is not dead end of the matter, she having been fighting legal battles one after another and therefore, the ground assigned in the impugned order is unsustainable. The requirement of O.T.E.T. is only for financial benefits like additional increment, etc.. In W.P.(C) No.15345 of 2022 between Balabhadra Majhi v. State of Odisha disposed off on 11.11.2022 it has been explained that such a qualification is not required for appointment. 3. Learned AGA-Mr. Jee representing the OPs has filed the Counter resisting the Writ Petition taking up contentions consistent with those mentioned in the impugned order itself. He makes submission in Page 3 of 8 justification of the grounds on which the impugned order has been structured. Mr. Jee also tells the Court that there are certain decisions of the Apex Court, wherein O.T.E.T. has been recognised as a requirement for the appointment as well and therefore, the impugned order is
Decision
unassailable. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter, as under and for the following reasons: 4.1. Petitioner was initially engaged as Non-Formal Instructor vide order dated 03.12.1998 and thereafter, she was disengaged w.e.f. 01.04.2001, and that she was engaged as an Educational Volunteer w.e.f. 27.07.2003, are not in dispute. Petitioner had fought a slew of legal battles, particulars of which have been given. Therefore, the first ground that the petitioner accepted the order that was founded on the Deputy Commissioner’s report followed by other actions cannot come in the way of she ventilating her fresh complaint in the writ jurisdiction. To the same extent and for the same reason, the ground stated in the impugned order is unsustainable. Page 4 of 8 4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in drawing attention of the Court to the Enquiry Report dated 31.01.2019 made by the Collector at Annexure-4, which, in the last three paragraphs, reads as under: “Whereas, in their depositions made before the undersigned on 31.01.2019, the former colleagues of Smt. Mishra have stated on solemn affirmation that, she was working as Ganasikhyak and her services were terminated on account of closure of the centre. Whereas, in due obedience to the orders of the Govt. I have personally enquired in to the case of Smt. Mishra and I am satisfied that, indeed, Smt. Mishra was working as a GS. And, therefore, on the strength of my findings, I am to rule that, there is overwhelming evidence in favour of Smt. Mishra & that her rights are unassailable to be absorbed as a GS & therefore, the esteemed Govt. in S&ME Deptt. Is requested to approve the case of Smt. Sandhyarani Mishra, Ex-EV. Sorisada Jenasahi EGS Centre of Aul Block for engagement as Gana Sikshak as a one off case, in view of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court” 4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also right in drawing attention to the Government Resolution No.3358/SME dated 16.02.2008 at Annexure-2, wherein the relevant paragraphs read as under: “For the purpose of universalization of Elementary Education, Education Guarantee Scheme (EGS), an integral part of Sarba Sikshya Abhijan (SSA), was operationalised in Orissa from the year 2001-02. Due to up-gradation of E.G.S. Centres to regular Schools and for various reasons, the Education Volunteers engaged in such E.G.S. Centres have been disengaged and would be facing disengagement in the above process. Government after careful consideration of the problems of the Education Volunteers under the Education Guarantee Scheme, decided to rehabilitate Education Volunteers in E.G.S. Centres who have been disengaged or facing disengagement under the Education Guarantee Scheme on the following manner. Such disengaged Education Volunteers will be rehabilitated 1. as "Gana Sikshyaka" under Sarba Sikshya Abhijan. Page 5 of 8 xxx xxx xxx The engagement of Gana Sikshyak will be made on basis of 4. annual contract, honorary and would be renewed by the Zilla Parishad through the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad basing on the positive certificate given by the Village Education Committee (VEC) about their attendance and performance in the school. In case of the Zilla Parishad decided not to renew the contract, appeals shall lie to the State Project Director, OPEPA. 5. The Gana Sikshyak will be engaged against the existing created vacancies of Sikshya Sahayaks and their consolidated remuneration etc. will be borne out of S.S.A. budget. They will be engaged in the Government Primary Schools. xxx xxx xxx The Gana Sikshyak will continue to avail of the benefits in 11. the process of selection for engagement of Sikshya Sahayak as extended in the Government in School & Mass Education Department Office Order No.23845/SME dt.04.12.07. The engagement of Gana Sikshyak is Co-terminus with that 12. of SSA Scheme, or other scheme as would be decided by Govt. This decision will be given effect to from the date of their 13. engagement as "Gana Sikshyaka".” The said resolution specifically provides for engagement of disengaged Education Volunteers as Gana Sikshyak under Sarba Sikshya Abhijan (SSA). Paragraph-11, which already reproduced above, specifically states that the Gana Sikshyak will continue to avail the benefits in the process of selection for engagement as Sikshya Sahayak, as extended to those in the Government School and Mass Education Office, vide Order dated 04.12.2007. This aspect has been conveniently lost sight of in the impugned order. Page 6 of 8 4.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in telling that when an employee is prevented from putting in particular number of years of service as required under the policy, for no fault of her, the benefit otherwise available to such employee cannot be denied. A contra argument would amount to permitting the erring official to take the benefit of their own wrong to the disadvantage of the citizen, that would not augur well to the Welfare State. In light of Apex Court in Bhupendra Nath Hazariya v. State of Assam1, State and its functionaries should conduct themselves as a model employer, therefore, denial of relief to the Petitioner cannot be sustained on fairness standards obtaining in the realm. Further, in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha2 & State of U.P v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava3 it was observed that individuals in similar situations should receive similar relief at the hands of the employer, so that unnecessary litigation is avoided. 4.5. Lastly, the question of requirement of O.T.E.T. qualification has been put to rest in Balabhadra Majhi supra holding that it is only for the purpose of earning financial benefits, such as increments & allowances, and that it is not a condition for appointment. The impugned order dated 24.01.2025 having been structured contrary to the law