The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.29236 of 2022 Kaushik Panda …. Petitioner Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Another …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 22.01.2025 Order No. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Facts
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging the order dtd. 21.09.2022 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-9. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement issued by Opposite Party No.1 on 22.10.2014 under Annexure-1, Petitioner made his application as against the post of Classical Teacher (Sanskrit). 4.1. It is contended that selection in terms of the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 was required to be conducted in terms of the Resolution issued by the Department on 27.10.2014 under Annexure-2. In the Resolution issued under Annexure-2, the qualification prescribed for the post of Classical Teacher reads as follows:- // 2 // “(C) Classical Teacher(Sanskrit)- Bachelors Degree with Sanskrit as one of the optional/Hons subject from a recognised university with minimum 50% marks in aggregate (45% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) with Sikshaya Shastri (Sanskrit) (a course prescribed by NCTE) from a recognised university / institution recognized by NCTE and affiliated to a recognized university or Shastri (Sanskrit) with minimum 50% marks in aggregate (45% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) from reconiged university and Sikshaya Shastri (Sanskrit) (a course prescribed by NCTE) from a recognized university Institution recognized by NCTE and affiliated to a recognized university. OR Acharya (Except Jyotishacharya and Ayurvedacharya) in or Sahityacharya with minimum 50% marks aggregate from a recognized university. OR Bachelor’s degree with Sanskrit as one of the optional / Hons subject with minimum 50% of marks in aggregate (45% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) and M.A. in Sanskrit with minimum 50% marks in (The aggregate untrained candidates shall have to undergo timeline as required prescribed by Govt.)”. recognized University. training within from a the 4.2. It is contended that Petitioner with having qualification of Acharya made his application and the said application was not only entertained, but also Petitioner’s name was reflected in the common merit list (Provisional) issued under Annexure-5. In the provisional merit list, Petitioner’s name was reflected at Sl. No.788 and his total mark was indicated as 258.9191. 4.3. It is contended that subsequently when Petitioners’ name was not included in the final merit list so published Page 2 of 6 // 3 // under Annexure-6, Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2205(C)/2015 along with another applicant.
Legal Reasoning
this Court in WPC(OAC) No.2205 of 2015. 5.1. It is contended that Petitioner since is an untrained hand, in view of the stipulation contained in the Resolution dtd.27.10.2014 under Annexure-2, Petitioner was not found eligible to get the benefit of appointment. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order has been rightly passed and it requires no interference of this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that selection for the post in question was governed by the Resolution issued by the Government in the School & Mass Education Department on dtd.27.10.2014 under Annexure-2. As found in the said Resolution for the post of Classical Teacher (Sanskrit), three sets of candidates are eligible to make the application. This Court after going Page 4 of 6 // 5 // through the said stipulation finds that a candidate with having Acharya qualification is eligible to get the benefit of appointment and there was no stipulation in the said Resolution that a candidate with having Acharya is also required to pass the training qualification. 6.1. Therefore, in view of the stipulation contained in the Resolution and the fact that the Petitioner is having Acharya qualification which is not disputed, the ground on which claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order, as per the considered view of this Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order dtd.21.09.2022 so issued by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-9. While quashing the said order, this Court remits the matter to Opposite Party No.2 to take a fresh decision by holding that Petitioner is an eligible candidate in terms of the qualification prescribed in the Resolution dtd.27.10.2014. Opposite Party No.2 while considering the claim of the Petitioner as an eligible candidate is required to verify as to whether any candidate having secured less mark than the Petitioner has been provided with the appointment in terms of the advertisement issued under Annexure-1. If on verification it will be found that candidates having secured less mark then the Petitioner has got the benefit of appointment in terms of Annexure-1, consequential action be taken to provide appointment to the Petitioner. This Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to Page 5 of 6 // 6 // complete the entire exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7.
Arguments
4.4. It is contended that the aforesaid application on being transferred to this Court was disposed of vide order dtd.29.06.2022 and Petitioner was permitted to make a fresh representation before Opposite Party No.2 for consideration of his claim. 4.5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since in terms of the advertisement issued under Annexure- 1 and the Resolution governing the procedure for such selection, Petitioner does have the required qualification as against the post of Classical Teacher, on the ground that Petitioner is an untrained hand, claim of the Petitioner was not considered and rejected vide the impugned order dtd. 21.09.2022 under Annexure-9. 4.6. It is contended that in the resolution issued under Annexure-2, three sets of candidates are eligible to make the application as against the post of Classical Teacher (Sanskrit). Since Petitioner admittedly was having the qualification of Acharya, there was no requirement on his part to acquire the training qualification and Petitioner should have been considered as an eligible candidate to get the benefit of appointment taking into account the mark secured by him and his position in the provisional merit list issued under Annexure-5. Page 3 of 6 // 4 // 4.7. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which claim of the Petitioner has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand placing reliance on the stand taken in the counter affidavit and the ground of rejection available under Annexure-9, contended that since sufficient number of trained candidates were made available and Petitioner being an untrained hand, his claim was not considered in terms of the earlier order passed by
Decision
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Subrat (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jan-2025 13:23:19 Page 6 of 6