(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.) Prangyashree Mohapatra v. State of Odisha and others
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2024 16:50:54 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.30958 of 2023 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.) Prangyashree Mohapatra …… Petitioner Versus State of Odisha and others …... Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case :- For Petitioner For Opposite Parties : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr.U.Sahoo, Advocate Mr.S.K.Jena, AGA CORAM : JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 10th September 2024 B.P. Routray,J. 1. Heard Mr.Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.Jena, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. 2. The Petitioner submitted her candidature for recruitment to the post of contractual Hindi Teacher in different Government Secondary Schools in terms of the advertisement dated 28th October 2014. Her candidature has been rejected on the ground of lack of eligibility criteria i.e. regarding due training qualification. W.P.(C) No.30958 of 2023 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2024 16:50:54 3. The said rejection of Petitioner’s candidature was earlier challenged before this Court in W.P.(OAC) No.1522 of 2016, wherein this Court directed to consider the case of the Petitioner. The same was again rejected by the authority i.e. the Director of Secondary Education (O) vide Order No.2326 dated 24th January 2023. This was further challenged by the Petitioner in another writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.18303 of 2023, wherein this Court again directed to reconsider the case of the Petitioner. The Director of Secondary Education in impugned order dated 12th September 2023 under Annexure-13 has again rejected the case of the Petitioner, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 4. The advertisement prescribes the required educational qualification for Hindi Teacher as follows: (45% aggregate 50% marks “(f) Hindi Teacher – Bachelor’s degree from a recognized University with Hindi as one of the elective subject with minimum for in SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) or with Rastrabhasa Ratna from Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti, Wardha or with Sastri from Orissa Rastrabhasa Parisada, Puri or with Snataka (Acquired by June-2005, the date up to which the temporary recognition has been granted) from Hindi Sikshaya Samiti, Orissa, Cuttack or an equivalent degree from a recognized institution with at least 50% marks in aggregate (45% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) and Hindi Sikshyan Parangat from Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra/B.H.Ed. ( a course prescribed by NCTE) from a Institution recognized by NCTE and affiliated to a recognized university/B.Ed. in Hindi (a course prescribed by NCTE) from Dakhin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras, a institution recognized by NCTE and affiliated to a recognized university. OR Bachelor’s degree with Hindi as one of the optional/Hons subject with minimum 50% of marks in aggregate (45% for W.P.(C) No.30958 of 2023 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2024 16:50:54 SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) and M.A. in Hindi with minimum 50% marks in aggregate from a recognized University. (The untrained candidates shall have to undergo required training within the timeline as prescribed by Govt.)” 5. The Petitioner is having Bachlore’s in Arts, Sastri from Orissa Rastrabhasa Parisada, Puri and has acquired B.Ed qualification from Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwarnager, Darbhanga, Bihar and with this qualification, she submitted her candidature for the post of Hindi Teacher. 6. Clause 3(f) of the advertisement, as stated above, can be summarized with reference to the qualification of the Petitioner, that, it has prescribed three alternative training qualification Viz., (A) Hindi Shikshan Parangat from Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra (B) B.H.Ed., a course 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. 7. Since the Petitioner is having B.Ed. qualification from Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwarnager, Darbhanga, Bihar, which is not included in the afore-stated three alternative qualifications required for applying to the post of Hindi Teacher, the decision of the authority that she was ineligible for not having required qualification is found justified. The B.Ed. qualification from Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwarnager, Darbhanga, Bihar is admittedly not included in the educational qualification prescribed by the authority in the advertisement. It is true that prescription of such qualification in the advertisement to W.P.(C) No.30958 of 2023 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2024 16:50:54 exclude B.Ed. from the institution as applied by the Petitioner was never the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 8. What is submitted by the Petitioner is that, her qualification of B.Ed. from Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwarnager, Darbhanga, Bihar being a recognized institution by NCTE, such qualification acquired by her should have been recognized by the authority for appointment to the post of Hindi Teacher as the training qualification. 9. This Court is unable to convince such submission urged by the Petitioner for the simple reason that once particular institutions and qualification therefrom is mentioned in the advertisement and none other than, the training qualification acquired from other institution cannot be treated as included in the advertisement. It is true that the authority as the employer has the choice of prescribing the qualification for a post legitimately bearing the features and nature of job. This is within the domain of administration of the employer and judicial review of the same is very limited. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others (2019) 2 SCC 404, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: “26……… 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……” 10. In the instant case, as the institution from which the Petitioner has acquired B.Ed. qualification is not specifically included or recognized in the advertisement, the Petitioner cannot claim any benefit on her behalf for W.P.(C) No.30958 of 2023 Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2024 16:50:54 the only reason that the qualification acquired from the said institution is recognized by NCTE. For this, the administrative decision of the employer is final and cannot be interfered with. As such, no case is made out in favour of the Petitioner to entertain the prayer. The writ petition is dismissed. (B.P.Routray) Judge // C.R. Biswal, A.R.-Cum-Sr.Secy// W.P.(C) No.30958 of 2023 Page 5 of 5