High High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTAC TTACK W.A. No.2670 of 2023 Debendra Kum Kumar Behera ..... Appellant versus- State of Odisha disha and others ..... Respondents Advocates app es appeared in this case: ellant For Appellant : Mrs. Sonita Biswal, Advoc Advocate For Responden ondents : Mr. Bimbisar Dash, Addl. Govt. Advocate CORAM: THE HO E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM DAM SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAH THE SAHOO J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of hearing and judgment: 21st Marc ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------- March, 2025 ------------------------------- ---------------------- Date ---------------------- ARINDAM SI AM SINHA, ACJ. 1. Mrs. Bis rs. Biswal, learned advocate appears on beh n behalf of appellant and submits, h its, her client had applied to be selected as ted as Hindi Teacher pursuant to adv to advertisement dated 27th October, 2014. H 014. His candidature was rejected fo cted for the third time, compelling him to a m to again move this Court by W.P. W.P.(C) no.38485 of 2020, disposed of on of on order dated 5th January, 2021. 2021. Direction made in said order is reprod reproduced below. W.A. no.2670 of 2023 Page 1 of 10 “Considerin ering the submissions made by the partie arties, this Writ Petition sta
Decision
n stands disposed of with a direction to th to the O.Ps.1 to 3 to consid nsider the representation at the instance o ce of petitioner vide Annex nnexure-7 and take a lawful decision in n in the matter taking into into account the grounds stated in the W e Writ Petition so also th o the decision in the case of State of O of Odisha Vrs. Ranjita Sam a Samal, (W.P.(C) No.3132 of 2018).” 2. Director irectorate of Secondary Education, Odisha b disha by office order dated 3rd Nov November, 2021 rejected her client’s rep representation on purported reas d reasons given in paragraphs 9 and 10 nd 10 of the order, reproduced bel ed below. “9. On ver n verification of the documents of the pet petitioner it is seen that, hat, the petitioner does not have any of th of the training qualificatio ication as prescribed for the post of Hindi indi Teachers in the advertisement adve 2014-15 i.e. Hindi ndi Sikshyan Parangat/B gat/B.H.Ed./B.Ed in Hindi from Daksh kshin Bharat Hindi Pra Prachar Sabha, Madras. He had passe assed H.T.T.C. (Hindi Tea Teacher’s Training Certificate) examinati ination which is not the prescribed the training qualification tion as per advertisem isement. 10. Thus, hus, even if his Shastri (Sanskrit) qual qualification is accepted in ed in place of Bachelor Degree as per or er order passed in O.A. No . No.2954 (C) of 2015 & batch cases and and confirmed by Hon’ble n’ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.3132/20 2/2018 State of Odisha Vs. a Vs. Ranjita Samal, still he does not beco become eligible W.A. no.2670 of 2023 Page 2 of 10 as he does does not have the training qualification as n as prescribed in the adve advertisement.” (emphasis supplied) (emp Her client onc nt once again moved the writ Court. By im . By impugned order dated 26th Sep September, 2023 the writ petition stood stood dismissed. Her client has prefe preferred this appeal. 3. Mrs. Bis rs. Biswal submits, the learned single Judge Judge erred on facts and in law. He Her client had equivalent qualification o tion on training. The learned Judge Judge failed to appreciate the fact. Para . Paragraph 7 from impugned orde d order is reproduced below. “7. After g ter going through the materials placed by by the learned counsel ap l appearing for the Parties, it is the view o ew of this Court that the Pe e Petitioner since does not have the requir quired training qualificatio cation as provided in the Resolution dtd. dtd.27.10.2014 under Ann Annexure-3 and no cogent materials h ls having been produced b ced by the Petitioner showing that he doe does have the required tr ed training qualification, this Court is not not inclined to interfere w re with the impugned order dtd.03.11.2021 .2021 so passed by Opposi posite Party No.2 under Annexure-6. Th . This Court is also not in ot inclined to interfere as the recruitmen itment is of the year 2014 014-15 and in the meantime the selection p ion process has already be y been completed as contended in the ba e bar. Not only that no inte interim order was ever passed protecting ting the interest of the Petit Petitioner. In any any view of the matter, this Court is not not inclined to entertain th in the Writ Petition and dismiss the same. me.” W.A. no.2670 of 2023 Page 3 of 10 4. Mrs. Bis rs. Biswal draws attention to requirement o ent on eligibility in resolution dat n dated 27th October, 2014, pursuant uant to which the advertisement ment was issued. She submits, relevant are nt are clauses (c) and (d) under parag r paragraph 1 on eligibility and clause (f) und (f) under paragraph 3 on educational ational qualification. Relied upon clauses a uses are reproduced below. “1. Eligibi igibility:- … … …(c …(c) Candidates having Bachelor degr degree in Arts/ Commerce erce/ Science with Bachelor degree in Edu Education from any univer iversities of the State or its equivalency a cy are eligible. Regarding ding Universities/ Institutions of outside tside State, the candidates ates shall only be eligible for engage gagement after verification ation of genuineness of their educationa ional / training qualificatio cation from concerned university/institu stitutions from which they they have obtained the degree by the conce oncerned DEO. (d) Such o ch outside university/institution candidates ates shall have to produc duce the authenticated proof of equiva quivalency and NCTE rec recognition in support of their qualifica lification at the time of ver f verification failing which they will not be ot be eligible in the selectio ection process.” “3. Educat ucational Qualification:- … …(f) (f) Hindi Teacher – Bachelor’s degre egree from a recognized ized University with Hindi as one of t of the elective subject wi t with minimum 50% marks in aggregat egate (45% for SC/ST/PH/ /PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) or with R th Rastrabhasa Ratna from from Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti, Ward ardha or with W.A. no.2670 of 2023 Page 4 of 10 Sastri from from Orissa Rastrabhasa Parisada, Pu , Puri or with Snataka (A a (Acquired by June-2005, the date up to up to which the temporary rary recognition has been granted) f d) from Hindi Sikshaya S ya Samiti, Orissa, Cuttack or an equiva uivalent degree from a rec recognized institution with at least 50% 50% marks in aggregate ate (45% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC cand candidates) and Hindi Siks Sikshyan Parangat from Kendriya Hindi indi Sansthan, Agra/B.H. B.H.Ed. (a course prescribed by NCT CTE) from a Institution tion recognized by NCTE and affili ffiliated to a recognized ized university/B.Ed. in Hindi (a course rse prescribed by NCTE) TE) from Dakhin Bharat Hindi Prach rachar Sabha, Madras, a s, a institution recognized by NCTE and a nd affiliated to a recognize gnized university. OR … …” (emphasis supplied) (emp 5. She draw e draws attention to her client’s qualification ication on training. It is a certificate icate issued by Board of Secondary Educa Education, Orissa in respect of H of Hindi Teachers’ Training Certificate ificate Examination, certifying appe g appellant passed Hindi Teachers’ Trainin raining Certification Examination tion held in the month of May, 1993 and wa and was placed in the ‘Pass’ division ivision. She then refers to resolution dated dated 18th February, 2008 adopted opted by the School and Mass Educatio ucation Department, published by d by authority in Orissa Gazette Extraor xtraordinary on 25th February, 200 , 2008. She points out statements mad s made therein on equivalency in ncy in respect of Hindi Teachers’ Train Training Certificate W.A. no.2670 of 2023 Page 5 of 10 course and pro nd pronouncement on equivalency regarding arding certificate had by her client lient as required training under the advertisem ertisement. Clauses 8 and 11 of said f said resolution are reproduced below. “8. With r ith regard to equivalency of Hindi Teache achers Training Certificate cate Course with that of B.Ed. Degree, the the Principal, Hindi Tra Training Institute, Cuttack has clarifie rified that the courses, sy s, syllabus and status or Hindi Teacher chers Training Certificate icate Course have been increased to a h a higher level which is eq is equivalent with that or Hindi Shikshya shyan Parangat course con conducted by the Central Institute of H of Hindi, Agra. He has f as further clarified that the duration ation of three examinatio nations, i.e. H.T.T.C. Hindi Shikshyan Pa Parangat and B. Ed. are re same, i.e. one year duration and th d their courses are equal qual in content and recommended for for declaring Hindi Tea Teachers Training Certificate Course as e as equivalent to B.Ed. D Letter No.3 d. Degree and to allow higher scale o No.36 dated the 31st October 2005 and Le the 19th May 2006. The Director, the dated le of pay vide d Letter No.91, tor, Secondary Education, tion, Orissa has offered the same view to w to allow the status and and scale of pay to Hindi Teachers w rs with that of Trained Gr d Graduate Teachers. xxx xx xxx xxx xxx xx 11. The he Hindi Teachers Training Certifica tificate Course conducted cted by the Hindi Training Institute titute, Cuttack, Bhubanesw neswar and Sambalpur is declared as eq as equivalent to Hindi Shik Shikshyan Parangat vis-à-vis B.Ed. De . Degree of an Indian Un University for the purpose of employmen ment.” W.A. no.2670 of 2023 Page 6 of 10 Thus there is c re is clear demonstration of appellant’s eligi s eligibility including on educational ational and training qualifications. She add adds, her client’s name figured gured in the merit list, after which his can is candidature stood rejected. 6. Lastly stly Mrs. Biswal relies on judgment of the f the Supreme Court in Chandraka drakala Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan, rep , reported in (2012) 3 SCC 129, pa , paragraph 8, reproduced below. “8. The w e word “equivalent” must be given a r a reasonable meaning. B ng. By using the expression “equivalent” o nt” one means that there ere are some degrees of flexibility or a or adjustment which do n do not lower the stated requirement. There here has to be some diffe difference between what is equivalent an t and what is exact. Apa Apart from that, after a person is pro provisionally selected, a d, a certain degree of reasonable expecta ectation of the selection b on being continued also comes into existen istence.” She seeks inte s interference in appeal for impugned in th d in the writ petition office order da der dated 3rd November, 2021 being set asid et aside and direction for her client to lient to be appointed. 7. Mr. Da r. Dash, learned advocate, Additional itional Government Advocate appe e appears on behalf of State and submits, im its, impugned in the writ petition o ition office order was decision taken on fa on facts. Appellant does not have have requisite qualification on training as r ng as required by the W.A. no.2670 of 2023 Page 7 of 10 advertisement. ment. Moreover, Board of Secondary Edu Education, Orissa cannot grant a rant a certificate in respect of teacher traini training as it is only concerned with d with examination up to 10th standard. 8. Referrin eferring to clause (d) under paragraph 1 o h 1 on eligibility in aforesaid resol resolution dated 27th October, 2014, pursua pursuant to which the advertisement ment was issued he submits, the statement ment on equivalency in clause (d) se (d) under paragraph 1 on eligibility gibility talks about equivalency in ncy in respect of outside universities. In a . In appellant’s case his contention tion was the converse. He urged, a certific certificate granted by Board of Sec f Secondary Education, Orissa to be equ equivalent to the named univers niversity, from which the training was requ equired under the advertisement. ment. Hence, appellant’s contention on eq on equivalency was correctly rejec rejected by the learned single Judge. Refe . Referring to clause (f) under parag r paragraph 3 on educational qualification M tion Mr. Dash points out, requireme irement on training from Kendriya Hindi Sa ndi Sansthan, Agra is a requirement ement in conjunction, earlier requirements ements being in the alternative. As ve. As such no interference is warranted ranted in appeal on impugned orde d order being a good one. 9. Paragrap ragraphs 9 and 10 of impugned in the writ e writ petition office order 3rd No November, 2021 gave the reason fo on for rejection of appellant’s can t’s candidature. Paragraph-9 says, on veri n verification of the W.A. no.2670 of 2023 Page 8 of 10 documents it w ts it was seen appellant does not have trainin training qualification as prescribe escribed for the post i.e. Hin Hindi Sikshyan Parangat/B.H.E t/B.H.Ed./B.Ed. in Hindi from Dakhin Bhara Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras adras. In the paragraph it is acknowledged ledged that appellant passed Hindi T indi Teachers’ Training Certificate Examin xamination, which is not the prescrib rescribed training qualification as per the ad advertisement. In paragraph 10 i h 10 it was said, even if appellant’s academ academic educational qualification o tion of Shastri (Sanskrit) qualification is ac n is accepted, he still does not have have the training qualification meaning aning thereby, from Hindi Sikshyan kshyan Parangat. Thus, reason in paragraph 1 graph 10 of the office order is reiter reiteration of the reason in paragraph raph 9. Appellant’s contention on on on the reason for rejection is reliance eliance on aforesaid resolution dat n dated 18th February, 2008 of the Sch e School and Mass Education Dep n Department. Paragraphs 8 and 11 from from the resolution have been rep reproduced above. The situation of appe f appellant’s seeking converse equiv equivalency stands addressed by the resolu resolution. Paragraph 11 of the reso resolution declares Hindi Teachers’ Train Training Certificate course conducted by Hindi Training condu Institute, Cuttack, Instit Bhubaneswar swar and Sambalpur as equivalent to Hi to Hindi Shikshyan Parangat vis- -à-vis B.Ed. degree of an Indian Uni n University for the purpose of em of employment. We find from the adve e advertisement, the W.A. no.2670 of 2023 Page 9 of 10 relevant requir requirement includes B.Ed., amongst other t other qualifications on training. 10. We hav e have not been shown an allegation and n and in pursuance thereof materia aterial to establish that the certificate issue issued by the Board of Secondary ndary Education, Orissa in favour of ap of appellant, is not genuine. Cont Contention in the office order is that that it is not the qualification r tion required. State has followed through rough on submission regarding conv g converse equivalency being claimed, as no as not contemplated in clause (d) e (d) under paragraph 1 on eligibility give y given in aforesaid resolution date n dated 27th October, 2014. Chandrakala (supra) comes to aid of appellan pellant. 11. The fac e facts stand established. Appellant poss t possesses requisite eligibility and y and educational qualification to be be considered for appointment. O ent. Office order dated 3rd November, 20 er, 2021 is set aside and quashed. A hed. Appellant’s name in the merit list stand t stands restored. The appointing auth ng authority is to consider appellant’s case f case for appointment on such restora restoration as on date his name was placed in ced in the merit list. 12. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Radha/Jyostna Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 24-Mar-2025 19:17:02 W.A. no.2670 of 2023 Impugne pugned order is reversed. The appeal is disp is disposed of. ( Arindam Acting Ch ndam Sinha ) g Chief Justice .S. Sahoo) (M.S. S Judge Jud Page 10 of 10