The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18999, 18995, 18998, 19000, 19001, 19004, 19005, 19506, 19841, 19843, 19847, 19851, 19853, 19854, 19855, 19856, 19858, 19859, 19860, 19865, 20657 and 21397 of 2024. (In the matter of application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) In W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 Mamatarani Tripathy …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through Secretary, School Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.18995 of 2024 Rakshyapal Kalo …. -versus- Petitioner of Odisha, State through Secretary, School Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.18998 of 2024 Dibya Satabdika Das …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through Secretary, School Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 1 of 25 Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.19000 of 2024 Nilam Dakua …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through Secretary, School Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.19001 of 2024 Santosh Kumar Behera …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through Secretary, School Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.19004 of 2024 Swarnalata Patasani …. -versus- Petitioner of Odisha, State through Secretary, School Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 2 of 25 Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.19005 of 2024 Romeo Priyadarsini Mangaraj …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through School Secretary, Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.19506 of 2024 Ranu Sethi …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through Secretary, School Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.19841 of 2024 Manaswini Sahoo …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through School Secretary, Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 3 of 25 Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.19843 of 2024 Jyotiranjan Parida …. -versus- Petitioner of Odisha, State through School Secretary, Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.19847 of 2024 Subhadarshini Ram …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through Secretary, School Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.19851 of 2024 Lopamudra Parija …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through School Secretary, Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 4 of 25 Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.19853 of 2024 Soumya Saswat Behera …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through School Secretary, Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.19854 of 2024 Jyotrimayee Sahoo …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through Secretary, School Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.19855 of 2024 Achyutananda Behera …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through School Secretary, Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 5 of 25 Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.19856 of 2024 Namita Prusty …. -versus- Petitioner of Odisha, State through School Secretary, Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.19858 of 2024 Biswojit Sethy …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through Secretary, School Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.19859 of 2024 Madhusmita Sethi …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through School Secretary, Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 6 of 25 Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.19860 of 2024 Kshitish Kumar Jena …. -versus- Petitioner of Odisha, State through School Secretary, Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.19865 of 2024 Pradeep kumar Jena …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through Secretary, School Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.20657 of 2024 Lipti Priyadarsini Khatoi …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through School Secretary, Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 7 of 25 Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. In W.P.(C) No.21397 of 2024 Sushree Supriya Mohapatra …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through School Secretary, Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Jena, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 4th October, 2024 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Sourav, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. S.K. Jena, learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. The descriptions of Petitioners in WP(C) No.19859, 19853 and 19856 of 2024 are modified as per the I.As and consolidated cause titles presented in court today. 3. All the Petitioners are the applicants for the post of Junior Teacher (Schematic) Category-2 for class VI to VIII pursuant to the W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 8 of 25 advertisement of the year 2023 under Annexure-3. Their names having placed in the draft merit list are rejected on the ground of not having one year B.Ed. (Special Education) training course. In addition to the same, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19001 of 2024 did not have BA/B.Sc qualification. 4. The case of the petitioners is that they all are possessing graduation with two-year B.Ed. (Special Education) course and are eligible for appointment to the post of junior Teacher as per the advertisement in terms of the qualification issued by National Council of Teachers Education (NCTE) in their letter dated 28th August, 2024 and subsequent clarification of Government of Odisha in letter No.21741 dated 30th August, 2024. Further the Government of Odisha in Social Security and Empowerment Department has issued notification dated 05th August 2024 stating that the candidates having two-year B.Ed. (Special Education) Degree are not restricted for recruitment as a Teacher for class VI to VIII. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that since the one year B.Ed. (Special Education) course was no more imparted in the state after the Academic Session 2014-15 and in place of that two-year B.Ed. (Special Education) has been introduced, the requirement made W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 9 of 25 in the advertisement with regard to one year B.Ed. (Special Education) should be read and treated as two-year B.Ed. (Special Education). It is further submitted that the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19001 of 2024 has the required graduation in his favour in terms of the advertisement. 6. The case of the State authorities as per their counter filed on 1st October 2024 is that, two-year B.Ed. (Special Education) would be recognized as the eligibility from the next session of recruitment. But concerning present recruitment pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-3 of the year 2023, the specific requirement is one year B.Ed. (Special Education). Admittedly, these Petitioners do not possess said qualification required in the advertisement to treat them eligible for the post of Junior Teacher (Schematic) for class VI to VIII and therefore, their claim for equivalency to the prescribed eligibility has no merit for consideration. 7. In addition to the above, Mr. Jena, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that while these Petitioners are without having the prescribed requirement of one year B.Ed. (Special Education), have furnished false information in the online application form that they were all having said qualification, which was subsequently detected at the time of verification of documents resulting W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 10 of 25 rejection of their candidature. Therefore, the Petitioners are not only lacking the requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement but they misrepresented their case in the online application form also to get through the scrutiny process to reach to the stage of draft merit list. Accordingly, the Petitioners are found no way eligible to the post advertised for and so, they do not have any merit in their contentions. 8. The dispute is relating to appointment of Junior Teacher (Schematic) Category-2 for class VI to VIII as per the advertisement of the year 2023 under Annexure-3. Clause 5 of said advertisement speaks of eligibility of candidates. Clause 5 (II) speaks of eligibility for category-2 Junior Teachers. The same is reproduced below:- “5(ii) CATEGORY-2 (For Classes VI to VIII) a. Graduation and two-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR At least 50% marks either in Graduation or in Post-Graduation and B.Ed. OR Graduation with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard. OR W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 11 of 25 Higher Secondary (+2) or its equivalent with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.EI.Ed.) OR Higher Secondary (+2) or its equivalent with at least 50% marks and 4-year B. A/B.Sc.Ed or B.A.Ed./B.Sc.Ed. Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed (Special OR Education) OR Post-Graduation with a minimum 55% marks or equivalent grade and three-year integrated B.Ed-M.Ed. AND b. Pass in Odisha Eligibility Test-ll (OTET-II) c. Candidates must have odia as MIL up to class-X or pass In odia language test equivalent to Matric standard conducted or declared equivalent by Board of Secondary Education, Odisha except for the candidates as mentioned under Para 5.2.” 9. Admittedly, the eligibility of all the Petitioners falls within the specification “graduation with at least 50% marks and one year B.Ed. (Special Education).” Further, as per explanation given at Clause-5.5(IV), the course recognized by Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) only shall be considered for the purpose of two-year Diploma in Education (Special Education) or one year B.Ed. (Special Education). 10. It is now important to see the procedure of selection. W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 12 of 25 Clause 8 of the advertisement prescribes the selection procedure, which reads as follows:- “8. SELECTION PROCEDURE 8.1 Publication of Master List After expiry of last date of submission of online application form, list of the candidates for each category with respect to their first preference district as submitted by them at the time of submission of application form will be published in OSEPA website. Information on subsequent preference districts of each candidate will also be available in OSEPA website on search. 8.2 Online Computer-Based Test An online computer-based test will be conducted by OSEPA /an Authorised Agency as per the syllabus contained in the advertisement to be published before the recruitment. 8.3 District wise and Category wise draft merit list District wise and category wise draft merit list will be published in OSEPA website. Draft merit list will be prepared taking into consideration all district preference submitted by individual candidates in order of preference followed by merit rank i.e. for a particular district, after exhausting all candidates having 1st preference, subsequent preferences will be considered. In case of a tie i.e. when two or more candidates obtain equal score, inter-se merit of such candidates shall be decided in the order as mentioned below: i. Date of birth (Older candidate will be above other candidates) ii. Percentage of marks in qualifying examination i.e in Higher Secondary (or its equivalent) will be considered. In case of further W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 13 of 25 tie, marks secured in Graduation will be taken into consideration followed by post-Graduation marks. If a tie still persists, Government will issue suitable instructions for breaking the tie. For a particular post, in a category within district, district preference will be preferred over merit. 8.4 Document verification After publication of the draft merit list, all candidates in the said list will be called for verification of original documents at their respective district headquarters. All documents required for verification will be notified by OSEPA In the detailed advertisement In OSEPA website. During document verification, if any candidate is not able to produce the essential document(s) in support of his/her claim of the Social/Special category/Age proof/Academic & Training qualification/RCI registration certificate as per information provided in the application form, the candidature will be rejected and his/her name will be marked as deleted in the draft merit list. The candidates have to produce the Academic and Training qualification/RCI registration certificate (in case of Special Education Candidates) acquired/issued on or before the last date of submission of online application. 8.5 Preparation of District wise Provisional Merit List and Approval Provisional merit list will be prepared after document verification of the candidates placed in the draft merit list. Then objections will be invited from the candidates who are placed in the provisional merit list and rejection list. The provisional merit list will be approved by the Competent Authorities at respective districts after verification of the original documents and inviting W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 14 of 25 objections from candidates within specific time period as mentioned in the calendar of activities Issued by the School & Mass Education Department. 8.6 Publication of District wise Final Merit List District wise final merit list will be published at concerned District websites as well as OSEPA website after approval by the Competent Authority. 8.7 Counseling The candidates will be called for allocation of schools through counseling by respective districts. Separate notifications will be issued and displayed by respective districts in their District websites as well as OSEPA website. Vacancies remain due to unavailability of eligible candidates, rejection and non-joining will be carried forward and recruitment will be done subsequently as per requirement. There will be no waiting list.” 11. The State by filing its counter in W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 has adopted the same in all the cases. The abandonment of one year B.Ed. (Special Education) course with effect from Academic Session 2014- 15 is not disputed by the state and it is also admitted by them that the two-year B.Ed. (Special Education) course are being imparted in place of one year B.Ed. (Special Education) after the Academic Session 2014-15 throughout the State. As seen from the advertisement, the requirement prescribed is one year B.Ed. (Special Education) course. In the advertisement there is no prescription of requirement of two-year B.Ed. (Special Education) and the Petitioners having well aware of the W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 15 of 25 same have submitted their applications through online and one such application of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 has been annexed to the counter at Annexure-B/2. The same reveals that the Petitioner has clicked on the option of graduation and one year B.Ed. (Special Education) and has given the name of the institute as such. It is admitted by learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that all such Petitioners have opted and clicked that option on the online application form and further mentioned the name of their institutions. A bare looking of the hard copy of the online application as produced under Annexure-B/2 does not reveal any mention of any clause with regarding to duration of B.Ed. (Special Education) as one year or two- year. 12. Now the submission of the Petitioners is that since one year B.Ed. (Special Education) course has been abandoned in the state and two-year B.Ed. (Special Education) course has been introduced, such requirement asked for in the advertisement is inclusive of qualification of two-year B.Ed. (Special Education). Here I would like to say that it is not the question of equivalency of both the qualifications, but the question is fulfilling the eligibility as per prescription in the advertisement. As stated earlier, the requirement is one year B.Ed. W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 16 of 25 (Special Education) and there is no specification of two-year B.Ed. (Special Education) in the advertisement. The Petitioners knowing very well such requirement in the advertisement have offered their candidature by clicking the option of one year B.Ed. (Special Education) in the online application. Therefore, it is clear from the beginning that the Petitioners have misrepresented their qualification in the online application. 13. What is next contended that, this qualification of two-year B.Ed. (Special Education) is same with the qualification of one year B.Ed. (Special Education). According to the petitioners, as per the notification of Government in Social Security and Empowerment Department the Diploma/Degree course in Teachers Education recognized by National Council for Teachers Education shall only be considered for eligibility as Teacher in the Upper Primary School (Class VI to VIII). Said notification dated 5th August 2024 also does not restrict the candidate having two-year B.Ed. (Special Education) Degree for recruitment as a Teacher for Upper Primary School (Class VI-VIII). Here it needs to be emphasized that the advertisement under Annexure-3 is not only made for Social Security and Empowerment Department but also meant for the teachers to be recruited in School W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 17 of 25 and Mass Education Department. Keeping in view the dispute with regard to two-year B.Ed. (Special Education), the clarification was sought for by School and Mass Education Department from the NCTE and accordingly NCTE have clarified in their letter No.126655 dated 28th August 2024 that the candidates having two year B.Ed. (Special Education) after the academic session 2014-15 may be allowed for consideration for appointment as a teacher for class VI to VIII subject to fulfillment of other provisions of the NCTE notification issued from time to time. Based on said clarification issued by NCTE, the Department of School and Mass Education issued their notification No.21741 dated 30th August 2024 stating the same thing as clarified by NCTE in their notification dated 28th August, 2024. Subsequently, on 6th September, 2024 another notification was issued by School and Mass Education Department under Annexure-D/2 stating that said clarification issued by NCTE will not be applicable for the current recruitment process since the same has been completed by the time of receipt of clarification from NCTE, and this will be applicable from the next recruitment years. 14. It is true that, as per Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the qualification for W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 18 of 25 appointment of teachers prescribed by NCTE as per their notifications issued time to time are mandatory for all States. The NCTE in their notification dated 23rd August 2010 have prescribed the minimum qualification for all kinds of teachers including teachers for class VI to VIII. Subsequently, on 29th July 2011 the NCTE again issued such minimum qualification with certain modifications to their earlier prescription. Both the notifications dated 23rd August 2010 and 29th July 20011, as produced in course of hearing, are kept on record. It is found from the advertisement that the qualifications required are exactly the same as mentioned by NCTE in their notifications. In other words, the NCTE requires graduation with at least 50% marks and one year B.Ed. (Special Education) as one of the minimum qualification for such teachers for class VI to VIII. And so the advertisement under Annexure-3 is in terms of the notification of the NCTE and does not violate the prescribed criteria thereof. 15. As mentioned earlier, it is not that the two-year B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification is to be treated as equivalent with one year B.Ed. (Special Education). But the question involved in the instant cases is that whether the applicants having two-year B.Ed. (Special Education) degree course would be treated as eligible in terms of the W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 19 of 25 requirement prescribed in the advertisement ? The fact that two-year B.Ed. (Special Education) is equivalent to one year B.Ed. (Special Education) is a different aspect to be considered. Had the Petitioners challenged the prescription of minimum qualification of one year B.Ed. (Special Education) in the advertisement, then the matter would have been a different consideration. But what they have done is, they opted in the online application of one year B.Ed. (Special Education) and then filed the writ petitions claiming to their eligibility with two-year B.Ed. (Special Education) for Category-2 teachers meant for class VI to VIII on the ground that the same is a recognized course of Rehabilitation Council of India and NCTE. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another v. Anit Kumar Das, (2012) 12 SCC 80, have explained that in absence of challenge to the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement, participation of the candidate in the recruitment would not accrue right in favour of him to challenge that eligibility criteria further. (See Para-16) 17. In Yogesh Kumar and Others v. Government of NCT, Delhi and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 548, the Supreme Court have held recruitment to Public Services should be held strictly in accordance W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 20 of 25 with the terms of the advertisement and the recruitment rules, and it is open to the recruiting authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source from which the recruitment is to be made. (See Para-8) 18. In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404, it is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows:- “26. ………….. Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. ….. 27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 21 of 25 the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision-making. The State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned.” (Emphasis supplied) 19. Further, this court in the case of State of Odisha v. Prasanta Kumar Nayak (W.A. No.862 of 2022, decided on 20th May, 2024) have observed that a candidate is required to possess the educational qualification in terms of the advertisement and this court is not competent to interfere with the qualification prescribed by the authority when the same has already been acted upon. (See para 21.4 and 21.5) W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 22 of 25 20. Mr. Sourav, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that once the NCTE has clarified regarding eligibility of the candidates having two-year B.Ed. (Special Education) course for the recruitment for teachers to Class-VI to VIII on 28th August 2024, the same could have been applied retrospectively to include those qualification as one of the prescribed qualification as per the advertisement. In this regard he relies on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Others v. Dr. Manu and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640 and State of Bihar and Others v. Ramesh Prasad Verma, (2017) 5 SCC 665. Perusal of afore-cited two decisions reveals that the subject in issue therein was regarding interpretation of clarificatory provisions in the statute. Undoubtedly a clarificatory provision can be made applicable retrospectively and law is well settled on the same. But in the instant cases a clarification given by the NCTE may have been retrospective effect depending on the circumstances and had the recruitment process not already completed. Re-opening the process by retrospective application of such clarification given by NCTE towards eligibility for the candidates having two-year B.Ed. (Special Education) would result in disturbing the settled merit list. Therefore, W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 23 of 25 upon considering all the materials placed on record, this court concludes that once the candidates do not have that prescribed one-year B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification they cannot claim their qualification of two-year B.Ed. (Special Education) as inclusive of the same qualification prescribed in terms of the advertisement under Annexure-3 to make them eligible for the posts. 21. The candidature offered by the Petitioner opting the click bottom in the online application form without having one-year B.Ed. (Special Education) course, which led them up to the process of preparation of draft select list, would not confer any right upon them for proceeding further in the selection process instead of rejection. It is for the reason that the authority did not have any scope for verification of document as per the procedure prescribed in the advertisement till that stage came for consideration. 22. For the reasons stated and discussions made above, no merit is seen in the contentions of the petitioners to declare their rejection of candidature as illegal and as such the writ petitions are dismissed. However, in terms of the clarification issued by the NCTE and the State Government subsequently, their eligibility for the post may be considered in the prospective advertisement to come for future years. W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 24 of 25 23. So far as the case of the Petitioner having B.Com. qualification other than B.A./B.Sc. in WP(C) No.19001 of 2024 need not be
Decision
answered specifically since on the other question the writ petition has failed. (B.P. Routray) Judge M.K. Panda/P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 21-Oct-2024 17:48:32 W.P.(C) No.18999 of 2024 and Batch Page 25 of 25