The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.33740 of 2022 Priyanka Mohanty State of Odisha and Others …. Petitioner Mr. C.R. Pattnaik, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 10.11.2023 08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the rejection of her claim to get the benefit of appointment as against the post of contractual Classical Teacher (Sanskrit) in terms of the advertisement issued by the Government –Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-1. 4. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, Petitioner with having the requisite qualification made her application for the post of contractual Classical Teacher (Sanskrit). In the said advertisement for the post of Classical Teacher (Sanskrit), the following qualification was prescribed:- // 2 // “(C) Classical Teacher (Sanskrit)- (45% in aggregated Bachelors Degree with Sanskrit as one of the optional/Hons subject from a recognized university with minimum 50% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC marks candidates) with Sikshya Shastri (a course prescribed by NCTE) from a rcognised university / institution recognized by NCTE and affiliated to a recognized university or Shastri (Sanskrit) with minimum 50% marks in aggregated (45% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) from recognized university and Sikshaya Shastri (a course prescribed by NCTE) from a recognized university /Institution recognized by NCTE and affiliated to a recognized university. (Sanskrit) (Sanskrit) OR Acharya with minimum 50% marks in aggregated from a recognized university. OR Bachelor’s degree with Sanskrit as one of the optional / Hons subject with minimum 50% of marks in aggregated (45% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) and M.A in Sanskrit with minimum 50% marks in aggregated from a recognized University. (The untrained candidates shall have to undergo required training within the timeline as prescribed by Govt.)”. 4.1. It is contended that even though Petitioner was eligible in all respect, but when she was not provided with appointment, she approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.2846(C) of 2015. The matter on being transferred was registered as WPC(OAC) No.2846/2015 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition inter alia with the following order:- “1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard. 3. The Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, seeks to quash the provisional merit list prepared by the Directorate of Secondary Education, School and Mass Education Department, Government of Odisha for appointment of contract teachers in Government High Schools for the year 2014-15 pursuant to the Advertisement dated 28.10.2014 issued by the Opposite Party No.1/ Secretary, School and Mass Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. She further seeks a direction from this Court to Page 2 of 7 // 3 // the Opposite Parties/ Department to prepare a fresh merit list on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates applied for the post of Classical Teacher on contractual basis.
Legal Reasoning
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has preferred an Original Application which has later been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as WPC (OAC) No.2846 of 2015. He further submits that the Government of Odisha, Department of School and Mass Education, Bhubaneswar issued an Advertisement dated 28.10.2014 inviting applications for filling of 5634 vacant posts on contractual basis in different Government High Schools of the State. The said Advertisement was also made in conformity with G.A. Department Notification No.33068/ Gen. dated 27.10.1989. Pursuant to the said Advertisement, the Petitioner applied for the post of Classical Teacher (Sanskrit) submitting all the required certificates before the authority. the candidates 5. Grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is a SEBC candidate. After verification of applications, provisional tabulation sheet was prepared according to the marks obtained by the Petitioner’s name found place at serial Nos.60 (under trained category) and 61 (under untrained category) respectively. the Though candidates whose names found place in the merit list and got selected, but her name did not find place in the merit list. the Petitioner secured highest marks the Petitioner wherein including than 6. Opposite Party No.3/ District Education Officer, Dhenkanal has also filed counter affidavit wherein at Paragraph-8 it has been mentioned as follows: it is humbly submitted that the total “That percentage of marks secured by the applicant No.1 is 248.89 and applicant No.2 is 222.86. The cut-off marks of the candidates those who have the Director, been provisionally selected by Secondary Education, Odisha under SEBC category for the post of contractual Classical Teacher was 240.55.” 7. In such view of the matter, the Petitioner seems to have secured highest marks than the candidates whose names found place in the merit list and got selected for the post. However, the recruitment is pertaining to the year 2014 and the said recruitment process has already been over and appointments have been made. The Petitioner has approached to the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack but the matter could not be heard for such a long time. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if any post is lying vacant, the authority can consider the case of the Petitioner, if she is otherwise eligible, within a period of three months from today.
Decision
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Page 3 of 7 // 4 // 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application”. 4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in the earlier writ petition so filed by the Petitioner a stand was taken by Opposite Party No.3, which is more fully indicated in Para-8: “8. That it is humbly submitted that the total percentage mark secured by applicant No.1 is 248.89 and applicant No.2 is 222.86. The cut-off marks of the candidates those who have been provisionally selected by the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha under SEBC category for the post of contractual Classical Teacher was 240.55”. 4.3. It is contended that even though an admission was made that Petitioner has secured 248.89 marks in SEBC category and the cut-off mark in the said category was 240.55, but the Petitioner was not provided with the appointment on the face of such admission and accordingly this Court vide order dtd.12.10.2022 directed Opposite Party No.3 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner. 4.4. It is contended that without proper appreciation of the position of the Petitioner and the mark secured by her in SEBC category and the Petitioner having fulfilled all the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the advertisement, her claim to get the benefit of appointment was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.25.11.2022 under Annexure-10. 4.5. It is further contended that while in the earlier counter filed by Opposite Party No.3, it was indicated that the Petitioner has secured 248.89 mark and the cut-off mark in SEBC category is 240.55, but in the Page 4 of 7 // 5 // impugned order under Annexure-10, it was indicated that the Petitioner has secured 257.1110 mark and on the ground that the Petitioner is an untrained candidate, her claim was rejected. 4.6. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the certificate issued by Sri Lal Bahadur Sastri Rastriya Sanskruta Vidyapitha, wherefrom Petitioner has acquired the B.Ed qualification in the examination held in the year 2013. 4.7. It is also contended that in the application submitted by the Petitioner so annexed by Opposite Party No.3 in its counter, Petitioner had submitted the certificate in support of her B.Ed qualification in Sanskrit. 4.8. It is accordingly contended that in view of such position and the Petitioner since possess the requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement under Annexure-1, the ground on which her claim has been rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-1 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed in the present case. It is contended that Petitioner since along with her application never produced the certificate showing that she has acquired Page 5 of 7 // 6 // the B.Ed. qualification in Sanskrit in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court, Petitioner being an untrained hand, the claim of the Petitioner was rejected by Opposite Party No.3. 5.1. It is also contended that since the Petitioner is an untrained hand, the name of the Petitioner was not included in the select list and accordingly she was not considered for her appointment as against the post of contractual Classical Teacher (Sanskrit) in terms of the advertisement issued under Annexure-1. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court is very surprised with the action of the Opposite Party No.3 in taking different stand before this Court. While filing the counter in the earlier writ petition in W.P.(C) (OAC) No.2846/2015, Opposite Party No.3 took a stand that the Petitioner has secured 248.89 marks and the last such selected candidate in SEBC category has secured 240.55 marks. But in the impugned order, Petitioner was shown to have secured 257.1011 marks. In the counter earlier filed in the earlier writ petition it was never the stand of Opposite Party No.3 that the Petitioner is an untrained hand. But in the impugned order by taking the Petitioner as an untrained hand, her claim was rejected. This Court taking into account the certificate issued by Sri Lal Bahadur Sastri Rastriya Sanskruta Vidyapitha under Annexure-11-Series and the application so annexed by Page 6 of 7 // 7 // Opposite Party No.3 as Annexure-B/3, finds that the Petitioner has the requisite B.Ed qualification in Sanskrit. 6.1. In view of such position and considering the fact that the Petitioner had secured more marks than the cut-off marks fixed in SEBC category, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition is inclined to quash the order dtd.25.11.2022 so passed by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-10. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opposite Party No.3 to provide appointment to the Petitioner as against the post of contractual Classical Teacher (Sanskrit) within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is permitted to provide copy of this order before Opposite Party No.3 for compliance. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Nov-2023 14:02:12 Page 7 of 7