The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.21025 of 2022 Indrani Biswal …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Das, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. R.N. Mishra, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 10.08.2023 Order No 8. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the Office Order dt.10.08.2022 so passed by the Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-9. Vide the said order, Opp. Party No.2 has upheld the rejection of the Petitioner’s candidature which was earlier made by the District Education Officer, Dhenkanal. 4. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Opp. Party No.2 on 13.08.2021 under Annexure-1 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of contractual Hindi Teacher in Government Secondary Schools of the State, Petitioner made her application for the post of Hindi Teacher. 4.1. It is contended that in the advertisement dt.13.08.2021, prescribed qualification for Hindi Teacher was as follows : Hindi Teacher: 1. Bachelor’s degree from a recognized University with Hindi as one of the electives/Optional/Pass/Honours subject with minimum 50% marks in aggregate (45% for SC/ST/PWD/SEBC candidates) and one of the following Training qualification (a) Hindi Shikshan Parangat from Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra (b) B.H.Ed., a curse prescribed by NCTE, from a recognized University/Institution (c) B.Ed in Hindi, a course prescribed by NCTE, from Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras. Or 2. Bachelor’s degree from a recognized University with for minimum 50% marks (45% SC/ST/PWD/SEBC candidates) with one of the following qualifications; in aggregate (a) Rastrabhasa Ratna from Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti, Wardha (b) Sghastri (Hindi) from Orissa Rastrabhasa Parishad, Puri (c) Snataka (Acquired by June-2005, the date up t which the temporary recognition has been granted) from Hindi Shiksha Samiti, Orissa, Cuttack and One of the following Training qualifications: (a) Sansthan, Agra Hindi Shikshan Parangat from Kendriya Hindi (b) recognized University/Institution. B.H.Ed, a course prescribed by NCTE, from a (c) from Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras.= B.Ed in Hindi, a course prescribed by BCTE, Page 2 of 7 4.2. It is contended that since the Petitioner was not having the training qualification from the prescribed three institutions so provided under Clause-5-B, Petitioner since was having the equivalent training qualification, in terms of the provisions contained under Clause-5(C) (d) of the advertisement, her application was entertained by the Opp. Parties so submitted by the petitioner under Annexure-2. 4.3. It is contended that since the Petitioner had obtained her B.Ed. qualification from Mahatma Gandhi Antarashtriya Hindi Viswavidyalaya, Wardha which has been declared as equivalent by the Utkal University vide its notification dt.16.07.2019 under Annexure-3 series, the Petitioner possesses the required training qualification in terms of the advertisement. 4.4. However, when the candidature of the Petitioner was rejected by the D.E.O, Dhenkanal, Opp. Party No.3, on the ground that the Petitioner does not possess the requisite training qualification as prescribed in the advertisement. and the Petitioner could not file her objection within the stipulated time, she approached this Court in W.P.(C ) No.35693 of 2021. This Court vide order dt.01.08.2022 while disposing the Writ Petition permits the petitioner to make an appropriate objection before Opp. Party No.2 by 5th August, 2022. In the said order, it was observed that Opp. Party No.2 is to consider the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the eligibility prescribed under Clause-5 (C)(d)of the advertisement dt.13.08.2021. Page 3 of 7 4.5. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, the Petitioner made a detailed objection before Opp. Party No.2 with a prayer to accept her candidature inter alia on the ground that the training qualification so acquired by the Petitioner from Mahatma Gandhi Antarashtriya Hindi Viswavidyalaya is equivalent to the B.Ed degree of the Utkal University. But the Opp. Party No.2 without proper appreciation of the direction of this Court as well as the provisions contained under Clause-5(C) (d) of the advertisement, rejected the claim of the Petitioner by upholding the decision of the District Education Officer, vide the impugned order dt.10.08.2022 under Annexure- 9. 4.6. It is contended that since the Petitioner has got the required training qualification, which has been declared as equivalent by the Utkal Unviersity in its notification dt.16.07.2019 under Annexure-3 series, the candidature of the Petitioner should have been considered, instead of upholding the rejection of the District Education Officer. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 separately. 5.1. It is contended that since the Petitioner has acquired the B.Ed. from Mahatma Gandhi Antarashtriya Hindi Viswavidyalaya through distant education and the same Page 4 of 7 having not been declared as equivalent by the Utkal University vide its notification dt.16.07.2019, no illegality has been committed by the Opp. Party No.2 in upholding the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature vide impugned order dt.10.08.2022. The stand taken by the Opp. Party No.2 in paragraph 9 of the counter is quoted hereunder. Anta Gandhi Rastriya <9. That, the petitioner has passed B.Ed. from Mahatma Hindi Vishwavidyalaya. This training qualification is not one of the three training qualifications prescribed in the advertisement. So, the candidature of the Petitoner was rightly rejected by the District Education officer, Dhenkanal on the ground of not having training qualification prescribed in the advertisement and as per report of the DEO, Dhenkanal her name was included in the draft reject list.= 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that in the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, a candidate for the post of Hindi Teacher has to possess one of the following training qualification: (a) Hindi Shikshan Parangat from Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra (d) recognized University/Institution. B.H.Ed, a course prescribed by NCTE, from a (e) from Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras.= B.Ed in Hindi, a course prescribed by BCTE, 6.1. In the advertisement under Clause-5(C )(d), it has been provided as follows: (d) Candidates possessing Academic/Training qualifications from Boards/Universities/Institutions outside Odisha Page 5 of 7 shall have to produce the authenticated proof of equivalency from any recognized Universities of the State of Odisha, affiliation of their institution to a recognized University and recognition of such Training course and Institute by NCTE failing which he/she shall not be considered as eligible for selection.” 6.2. It is found that the petitioner has got her B.Ed. Degree from Mahatma Gandhi Antarashtriya Hindi Viswavidyalaya and the said B.Ed. qualification has been declared as equivalent by Utkal University vide its notification dt.16.07.2019. Therefore, as per considered view of this Court, the petitioner has got the required training qualification in terms of the advertisement, more particularly, the training qualification possessed by her is in consonance with the qualification prescribed in the advertisement. Therefore, the rejection of the Petitioner’s candidature on the ground that she does not have the required training qualification is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.3. Since the candidature of the Petitioner has been rejected on the said ground only, this Court is inclined to quash the Office Order dt.10.01.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-9 as well as the rejection of her candidature made by the District Education Officer on the ground that the Petitioner does not have the required training qualification. While quashing the same, this Court directs the Opp. Party No.3 to consider the candidature of the Petitioner as a valid one and take a decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Page 6 of 7 6.4. On such consideration, if it is found that the candidates similarly situated with required percentage of mark as like the petitioner have been extended with the benefit of appointments, consequential follow-up action shall be taken within the aforesaid time period.
Decision
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Aug-2023 14:30:03 Page 7 of 7