The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.38976 of 2021 Ramanath Sethy …. Petitioner Mr. N. Lenka, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 05.04.2023 Order No 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. N. Lenka, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- <It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to admit the writ application issue rule NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ or writs as deem fit and proper calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the Petitioner shall not be selected for the post of TGTA meant of SC candidates and why his name shall not be included in the provisional selection list vide Annexure-8, so far as SC candidate is concerned in appropriate place and why appointment letter shall not be issued in his favour and why the NCTE certificate produced by the petitioner vide Annexure-9 shall not be accepted. In the event of the Opp. Parties fail to show-cause or show insufficient cause said rule be made absolute. // 2 // And further be pleased to pass any order/orders direction/directions as deem fit and proper. And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.= 4. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued for recruitment to the post of Contractual Trained Graduate teacher in different Govt. Secondary Schools of the State, by Opp. Party No. 2 on 28.08.2021 under Annexure-1, the Petitioner made his application under Annexure-2 as a Scheduled Caste candidate. It is contended that in the recruitment test so conducted in terms of advertisement under Annexure-1, though the Petitioner secured 39 marks, but he was not selected and his name was included in the reject list so published under Annexure-6. It is contended that the Petitioner was included in the reject list on the ground that the Petitioner has not submitted the affiliation certificate and NCTE recognition certificate with regard to his acquisition of B.Ed. qualification from the institution in question. 4.1. It is contended that on coming across the reject list so published under Annexure-6 and as permitted, the Petitioner submitted his objection on 29.11.2021 vide Annexure-7 series by enclosing the affiliation issued by the Andhra University in respect of the College in question for the academic year 2012-13. It is contended that since at the time of submitting the objection, the NCTE certificate was not available and it was only made available to the Petitioner on 30.11.2021, the Petitioner also submitted the same through online on 30.11.2021 itself. 4.2. It is contended that since the Petitioner took admission to prosecute his B.Ed. degree in the institution in question during the Page 2 of 6 // 3 // academic session 2012-13 and as revealed from the documents enclosed to the objection at Page No. 40 & 41 of the brief, the institution in question was having the affiliation of Andhra University for the academic year 2012-13 and the NCTE certificate also shows the recognition for the academic session 2012-13. Mr. Lenka contended that the Petitioner’s claim for appointment should have been considered after receipt of the objection. It is contended that the authority concerned without proper appreciation of the documents enclosed to the objection did not consider his case while publishing the final merit list under Annexure-8 on 03.12.2021. 4.3. It is further contended that in SC category though 633 candidates were selected and the last such candidate has secured 37 marks, but the Petitioner in spite of having secured 39 marks, he has been left out from the purview of selection. Accordingly, it is contended that the matter requires reconsideration by the O.P. No. 2. It is also contended that number of vacancies are there to accommodate the Petitioner as against SC category. 5. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that since the Petitioner acquired the B.Ed. degree during the year 2014 and he having not submitted the required affiliation and recognition for the academic session 2013-14 along with his objection so submitted under Annexure-7, his case was not considered nor he was included in the final select list published under Annexure-8. The stand taken by the Opp. Party No. 3 in Para 8 & 9 of the counter are reproduced hereunder:- <8. That it is humbly submitted that after scrutiny of the documents a draft merit list and a draft reject list were Page 3 of 6 // 4 // published and opportunity was given to the candidates vide Notice No. 30674 dated 26.11.2021 of the Director of Secondary Education, Odisha to file objections if any with authenticated relevant documents to make necessary corrections in the final merit and reject list of the candidates. Pursuant to the afore said notice dated 2611.2021 the petitioner submitted the certificate of affiliation in favour of the Nagarjuna College of Education, Sanakarapuram, Andhra Pradesh for the year 2011-12 and NCTE recognition for the B.Ed. Course of the institution for the academic session 2011-12 though he has acquired the B.Ed. degree qualification during the year 2014. The copies of the certificate of affiliation and NCTE recognition submitted by the petitioner are enclosed here with as Annexure- B/3(series). 9. That it is humbly submitted that as the petitioner failed to submit the current affiliation and NCTE recognition of the institution for the academic year 2013-14 i.e. in which he has passed the B.Ed. Examination per the conditions stipulated in the advertisement even after giving sufficient pass opportunity, the validity of the B.Ed. p certificate submitted by the petitioner is not maintainable for consideration of his selection for the post of TGT(Arts).= 5.1. It is accordingly contended that since the Petitioner has failed to submit the required affiliation and recognition as desired in Annexure-6, his case has not been considered and no illegality has been committed by the Opp. Parties. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that the Petitioner took admission to prosecute his B.Ed. during the academic session 2012-13. As revealed from the documents Page 4 of 6 // 5 // enclosed to the objection vide Annexure-7 series the Petitioner has produced the affiliation as well as the recognition in favour of the institution for the academic year 2012-13. Since the Petitioner has taken admission to prosecute B.Ed. degree during the academic session 2012-13 the stand taken by the Opp. Parties in the counter that since the Petitioner has not submitted the affiliation and recognition for the academic session 2013-14 his case was not considered, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.1. Therefore, this Court while interfering with the matter, directs the Opp. Party No. 2 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioner. It is observed that while taking such a decision the documents produced by the Petitioner along with his objection showing the affiliation and recognition so extended in favour of the institution in question for the academic year 2012-13 will be taken into account. On such consideration if it is found that the concerned institution was having the required affiliation and recognition during the academic session 2012-13, the case of the Petitioner be considered. As contended by Mr. Lenka if the last candidate selected in SC category was having 37 marks and the Petitioner has secured 39 marks, O.P. No. 2 is directed to take appropriate step in the matter. O.P. No. 2 is also further directed to look into the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner regarding the vacancies available as on date. This Court directs the Opp. Party No. 2 to take a fresh decision within a period of one from the date of receipt of this order. The Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before the O.P. No. 2 within a period of three (3) days from the date of receipt of this order. O.P. No. 2 is directed to act on receipt of the same. Page 5 of 6 // 6 // 7. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Page 6 of 6