The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.C.(OAC) No. 2239 of 2018 Kabita Tripathy …. Petitioner Mr. P.N. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 21.07.2023 Order No 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. P.N. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the rejection of her claim for absorption as a regular Primary School Teacher so issued by Opp. party No.1 vide order dt.14.05.2018 under Annexure-21. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that for the purpose of such absorption as a regular Primary School Teacher and taking into account the fact that the Petitioner had acquired the Diploma in Mental Retardation from the National Institute for the Mentally Handicapped, the Govt. in the Department of School and Mass Education vide its letter dt.01.02.2012 under Annexure-9 sought for clarification from the Board of Secondary // 2 // Education, Orissa, Cuttack with regard to equivalency of the qualification of 33 Resource teachers which also includes the present Petitioner. The Department sought for equivalency of the qualification of Diploma in Mental Retardation with that of the C.T qualification of the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha. 4.1. It is contended that on receipt of Annexure-9, Board of Secondary Education vide its letter dt.22.03.2012 under Annexure- 8 clearly indicated that Diploma in Special Education (Mentally Retardation) course so acquired by the candidates vide Sl. Nos.2,5,6,7,8,20 & 22, out of the 33 Resource Teachers, are equivalent to that of the CT qualification of the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha. 4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the present petitioner was at Sl. No.2 of the list of 33 Resource Teachers whose cases were referred by the Govt. to the Board of Secondary Education vide Annexure-9. Since the Board has accepted the equivalency of the Diploma qualification, so produced by the Petitioner as equivalent to the CT qualification, the Petitioner is eligible and entitled for his absorption as a Primary School Teacher. But on the face of such clarification issued under Annexure-8, Opp. Party No.1 by taking a plea that the Petitioner has acquired the Diploma which is a one year Course and the equivalency given by the Board is in respect of two years course, rejected the claim vide the impugned order dt.14.05.2018 under Annexure-21. 4.3. To the aforesaid plea of the Opp. party No.1, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the Circular issued by the Rehabilitation Council of India under Page 2 of 5 // 3 // Annexure-4. In the said clarification, it has been clearly indicated that one year as well as two year Diploma in Special Education(Mental Retardation) are equivalent qualification and the said clarification is already issued by the Council vide letter dt.13.04.2012. It is accordingly contended that taking into account the clarification issued by the Board under Annexure-8 read with the clarification issued by the Council vide its Circular dt.29.07.2016 under Annexure-23, there is no dispute that the petitioner possesses the required C.T qualification and accordingly as like other Resource Teachers, who have been absorbed as regular Primary School Teachers is also eligible to get similar benefit. 5. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned A.G.A on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken by Opp. Party No.4 in his counter affidavit. 5.1. It is contended that after absorbing a number of Resource Teacher when the Government found that 33 nos. of Resource Teachers are not eligible on the ground that their certificates are not equivalent to that of the CT qualification, the Government vide Annexure-9 referred those 33 cases to the Board for verification. On verification by the Board, it was indicated that Diploma in Special Education (Mental Retardation) is equivalent to the C.T qualification of Board of Secondary Education in respect of candidates mentioned at Sl. Nos.2,5,6,7,8, 20 and 22. As the list of 33 Resource Teachers whose cases were referred is not available in the record, it cannot be said that the petitioner is coming within those 7 candidates whose certificates have been found equivalent by the Board. It is also contended that since the Petitioner has passed Page 3 of 5 // 4 // Diploma which is a one year course and such a qualification was not declared equivalent vide Annexure-8, Opp. Party No.1 took a different view while rejecting the Petitioner’s claim vide the impugned order under Annexure-21. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that the Petitioner was earlier working as a Resource Teacher. It is also found from the record that similarly situated Resource Teachers were absorbed as Primary School Teachers. But when some dispute arose with regard to the equivalency of the certificate produced by the present Petitioner, Government referred the cases of 33 such Resource Teachers to the Board under Annexure-9 for verification. On such verification, Board of Secondary Education vide Annexure-8 indicated that out of those 33 Resource teachers, the certificates produced in respect of the names mentioned against Sl. No.2,3,5,6,7,8,20 & 22 do possess the required equivalency. The Rehabilitation Council of India vide Annexure-23 has also held that the one year and two years Diploma in Special Education (Mental Retardation) are equivalent qualification. In view of such clarification issued by the Board, under Annexure-8 and the clarification of the Council available at Annexure-23. Opp. Party No.1 should not have rejected the claim by holding that the Diploma so acquired by the Petitioner is a one year course and it has not yet been declared as equivalent. 6.1. In view of such clarification issued by the Rehabilitation Council of India vide its circular dt.29.07.2016 under Annexure-23 read with clarification issued by the Board on 22.03.2012 under Annexure-8, it is the view of this Court that the Petitioner do Page 4 of 5 // 5 // possess the required equivalency. This Court while holding so, is inclined to quash the order at Annexure-21. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to take appropriate steps for absorption of the Petitioner as a Primary School Teacher within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. But Opp. Party No.1 shall verify as to whether the name of the Petitioner is at Sl. No.2 of the list of 33 Resource Teacher so forwarded by the Government under Annexure-8. Only after finding that the name of the Petitioner is referred as against Sl. No.2, appropriate order will be passed in the matter. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2023 14:46:10 Page 5 of 5