The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 15613 of 2018 (An application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) --------------- Purushottam Dalli ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. P.K.Panda Advocates. For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik Additional Government Advocate _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. JUDGMENT 17th January, 2025 An advertisement was issued by the State Project Director, Odisha Primary Education Programme Authority (OPEPA) vide notification dated 26.12.2016, inviting applications from intending candidates to fill up the vacancies of Sikhya Sahayaks in different districts. The Page 1 of 11 petitioner was one of the applicants pursuant to such advertisement. 2. It is stated that he belongs to the Telugu community being a resident of the border area of Odisha neighbouring the State of Andhra Pradesh. He completed his Secondary School Certificate Examination in Government High School, Icchapuram in Andhra Pradesh, which is declared equivalent to the H.S.C. Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha. He completed his Bachelor of Science degree from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University, Hyderabad in Telugu Medium. Thereafter, he successfully completed the degree of bachelor of Education from Andhra University, Visakhapatnam. He also passed the Odia Language Test conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha equivalent to Class X standard and also the Odisha Teacher Eligibility Test, 2016. 3. In the advertisement mentioned above, 7 vacancies of +3 B.Ed., Telugu Sikhya Sahayaks in the UR category were notified for Gajapati district. As per notice dated 17.01.2018 of the Collector, Gajapati, the candidates were called upon to attend verification of documents on 27.01.2018. The Page 2 of 11 petitioner appeared and produced all the documents and certificates. 4. Thereafter, while expecting to be favoured with an order of appointment, he was surprised to know that his
Legal Reasoning
candidature had been rejected. He challenged such rejection before this Court in W.P.(C). No. 4452 of 2018, which was
Decision
disposed of by order dated 31.03.2018 granting him liberty to submit his objection before the competent authority. This Court also held that if the selection process has already been completed, the position of the last person selected in Category-2 shall be subject to the ultimate outcome on consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner submitted representation on 26.03.2018 before the Collector ventilating his grievance. Other candidates similarly placed as the petitioner also submitted representations before the Collector. 6. The Collector, Gajapati considered all the representations jointly and rejected the same on the ground that the candidates do not fulfil the criteria laid down in resolution No. 25605/SME dated 26.12.2016 of the Page 3 of 11 Government. The petitioner’s case was rejected basically on the ground that he had not passed H.S.C. Examination in Odia Medium but had done so in Telugu Medium which is contrary to Clause 6.2 of the guidelines. 7. As such, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ application seeking the following relief; “In the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, issue notice to the Opp. Party to show cause as to why the prayers made hereunder shall not be allowed and upon perusing the causes. If any shown, pleased to; (i) Issue a direction to the Opp. Parties to treat the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education in favour of the Petitioner under Annexure- 2 Series to be sufficient for the requirement under Clause-6.2 of the guideline. (ii) Quash the order dated 25.06.2018, passed by the Collector-cum- Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gajapati under Annexure-10; (iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Opp. Parties to engage the petitioner as Telugu Sikshya Sahayak in Gajapati District. And may further be pleased to pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 8. Counter affidavit has been filed by the District Project Coordinator (Opp. Party No.3), inter alia, stating that as per the requirement of Clause 46.2, the candidates in order to be eligible for Urdu, Bengali and Telugu Sikhya Sahayaks must have passed the said subjects as MIL up to HSC Standard and shall produce certificate from the Head Master of the concerned schools that they have passed H.S.C. Examination Page 4 of 11 in Odia Medium. It is further stated that the said Clause has been incorporated keeping in view the fact that the Sikhaya Sahayaks to be recruited would be engaged in bilingual schools to teach students for H.S.C. Examination where the subjects are required to be taught in Odia language and unless a candidate has received education in Odia Medium, he will not be in a position to teach the students in Odia Medium. It is however, stated that though the petitioner has a certificate from the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha declaring that he possesses knowledge in Odia equivalent to Class X Examination but said certificate does not satisfy the requirement of Clause 6.2 which implies that he should have received education in all the subjects in Odia Medium except the language papers. 9. In course of hearing, an additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner specifically stating that candidates similarly placed as him have been appointed as Sikhya Sahayaks (Telugu) in other districts pursuant to the same advertisement. The names of 3 such candidates, who were appointed in Ganjam district have been mentioned. Further, Page 5 of 11 the names of 4 other candidates who are also similarly placed as the petitioner have been mentioned. 10. In response, an additional affidavit has been filed by the State Project Director, OPEPA stating that he had not received any communication with regard to engagement of any person de hors the conditions mentioned in the resolution as well as the advertisement. 11. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating his stand and further that similarly placed candidates have been appointed and that in a writ application filed by the said candidates, being W.P.(C). No. 6657 of 2018, the Director, OPEPA had filed a counter affidavit stating that in a meeting held on 19.07.2023 regarding the above writ application, it was decided to give engagement to the said persons and accordingly, they were so appointed. 12. Heard Mr. P.K.Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 13. Mr. Panda would argue that the authorities have misinterpreted the spirit of the Clause 6.2 of the resolution dated 26.12.2016 inasmuch as the requirement is for the Page 6 of 11 candidates to be well versed in Odia language so as to be able to impart education to students of bilingual schools. Said Clause however, does not debar a candidate having passed his H.S.C. Examination in any other language such as, Telugu. In the instant case, the petitioner has passed Odia equivalent to Class X Standard in the examination held by the Board of Secondary Education. He must therefore, be held qualified to be appointed. Mr. Panda further argues that even otherwise, the authorities cannot make a discrimination in the matter of engagement. When candidates similarly placed as the petitioner have been engaged in Ganjam district not granting such benefit to the petitioner amounts to gross discrimination. 14. Mr. Pattnaik, learned State counsel on the other hand, would argue that Clause 6.2 of the resolution provides that a person to be appointed as Sikhya Sahayak in a bilingual school must be capable of imparting education in Odia language in subjects other than the language subject. In the instant case, the petitioner has only passed Odia language equivalent to Class-X standard but in so far as other subjects are concerned, he has passed the same in Telugu Medium. Page 7 of 11 He therefore, does not fulfil the requirement of Clause 6.2. On the question of discrimination, Mr. Pattnaik would argue that if any decision was taken to engage similarly placed persons in Ganjam district, the same was done to implement the directions issued by this Court in the writ application filed by the said candidates and therefore, cannot be treated as a precedent. 15. The facts of the case being undisputed, it would be apposite to first refer to resolution dated 26.12.2016 of the Government in School & Mass Education Department, Clause 6.2 of which reads as follows: “Clause 6.2- In order to be eligible for Urdu, Bengali, Telugu Sikshya Sahayaks. Candidates must have passed Urdu, Bengali, Telugu as the case may be as MIL up to HSC standard. Since their engagement is likely to be held in the bilingual schools, such candidates shall produce a certificate from the Head Master of the concerned schools to the effect that she/he has passed HSC examination in Odia medium. Candidates can apply either in Category-1 or in Category-2 as per their qualification.” 16. A plain reading of the provision shows that in order to be eligible for appointment as Urdu, Bengali and Telugu Sikhya Sahayaks, the candidates must have passed the said subject as MIL up to H.S.C. standard. In the instant case, the petitioner has passed all subjects including Telugu. The other Page 8 of 11 requirement is that he shall produce certificate from the school to the effect that he has passed H.S.C. Examination in Odia Medium. The petitioner obviously could not have produced any such certificate having pursued his education in Telugu Medium Schools in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, if the requirement of Clause 6.2 is strictly construed, a question of his eligibility may be raised but then, the fact that he has also passed Odia up to Class X standard, which is undisputed, cannot be lost sight of. This would imply that despite having passed the H.S.C. in Telugu Medium, he has knowledge of Odia. Clause 6.2 appears to have been incorporated with the objective of ensuring that in bilingual schools also, the teachers must be conversant with Odia language. Viewed from this angle, it can be held that the petitioner having passed in Telugu Medium and having knowledge of Odia up to Class-X standard cannot be treated as entirely ineligible. What is important to note is, engagement of such a person is to be made in bilingual schools. In other words, in the instant case, the petitioner’s claim for engagement is in a school having both Telugu and Odia students. Since the petitioner possess knowledge of Page 9 of 11 both the languages it cannot be said that he would be incapable of imparting teaching to the students of such a school. The authorities appear to have made a hyper- technical interpretation of the relevant clause without considering the object and intendment of the same. 17. The petitioner has also raised the question of discrimination inasmuch as according to him persons similarly placed as him namely, Paili Sree Devi, Ladi Shankar Rao and Puli Janardan have since been engaged as Sikhya Sahayaks (Telugu) in Ganjam district. It is also brought on record by the petitioner that 4 other persons namely, Jani Syam Babu, M.S.Sarma, Ratnala Dhanumjaya and Munjila Janakiram have also been engaged in Ganjam district, all of whom, like the petitioner, pursued studies in Telugu Medium from schools in Andhra Pradesh. These averments have not been specifically denied or disputed by the State before this Court. If the said candidates have actually been engaged in Ganjam district, there is no reason as to why the petitioner should be denied the benefit, particularly when their engagement is pursuant to the very same advertisement in which the petitioner had applied. Page 10 of 11 18. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is firstly, not inclined to accept the stand that the petitioner is not eligible for engagement in a bilingual School as Sikhya Sahayak (Telugu) as per Clause 6.2 of the resolution dated 26.06.2016 and secondly, even assuming for a moment that the eligibility of the petitioner for being engaged is doubtful, then also, persons similarly placed as him having already been appointed in the neighbouring district, it would amount to gross discrimination if he is not given the similar benefit. 19. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed. The Opposite Party authorities are directed to issue necessary order of engagement in favour of the petitioner as Sikhya Sahayak (Telugu) against any available vacancy in Gajapati district within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 17th January, 2025/ Deepak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 25-Feb-2025 18:34:10 Page 11 of 11