The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.37199 of 2023 Minakhee Panigrahi Commnr.-cum-Secy. To Govt. of Odisha, S & ME Dept., BBSR & Others …. -versus- Petitioner Mr. L. Samal, Advocate …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 03.09.2024 Order No. 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. In spite of due service of notice on Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5, no one has entered appearance on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 4 & 5. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “quashing of rejection order dtd.25.10.2023 passed by the Opp. Party No.2 vide order No.28302 at Annexure-18 to the writ petition with a further direction to the Opp.Party No.2 & 3 to publish a fresh merit list by properly adding the B.Ed. percentage of marks obtained by the Petitioner in B.Ed. examination i.e.77.5000% instead of 57.000% which has been wrongly assessed in the tabulation sheet and if found suitable then the Opp. Party No.3 be directed to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner as a Contractual TGT Arts Teacher with all service and financial benefits under his administrative control from the // 2 // date when the Opp.Party No.4 & 5 have given appointment in the said post who have obtained less marks than the petitioner”. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 23.10.2014 under Annexure-2 and the corrigendum issued on 06.01.2015 under Annexure-3, Petitioner made her application as against the post of contractual TGT Arts. 4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner made the application under Annexure-5, taking into account the mark secured by her in the B.Ed. examination. In the provisional tabulation sheet issued under Annexure-6, percentage of mark of the Petitioner in the B.Ed. Examination was reflected at 77.5000 %. Subsequently while issuing the notice under Annexure-7, the percentage of mark of the Petitioner was calculated at 57.000% and Petitioner was called for verification of her documents. But vide Notification dtd.07.05.2015 under Annexure-8, Petitioner’s name when was reflected in the reject list, Petitioner though filed an objection to the notice on 14.05.2015 under Annexure-9, but without proper appreciation of the same while issuing Annexure- 10, his percentage of mark in the B.Ed. was again taken as 57.000%, and she was placed at Sl.No.2789. 4.3. It is contended that in the list published under Annexure-10, when the B.Ed. mark of the Petitioner was shown at 57.000/-, Petitioner by enclosing the Page 2 of 7 // 3 // information provided by the University from which she had passed the B.Ed. under Annexure-11, made a detailed representation before Opposite Party No.2, indicating therein that the percentage of mark in her B.Ed. Examination in view of Annexure-11, will be 77.5000%. However, it is contended that on the face of such application filed by the Petitioner before Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-12, when no decision was taken, Petitioner approached the Tribunal in W.P.(C) (OA) No.1404 of 2015 with the following prayer:- “(i) Admit and allow the Original Application; (ii) The Respondents, more particularly the Respondent No.2 be directed to publish a fresh merit list by properly adding the B.Ed. percentage marks obtained by the applicant in the B.Ed. examination i.e. 77.5000/- which has been wrongly assessed in the tabulation sheet and if found suitable, then the Respondent No.4 be directed to issue appointment order in favour of the applicant as a Contract TGT Art Teachers under his administrative control. (iii) Any other relief(s) as the Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper be awarded in favour of the applicant including litigation cost for the interest of justice”. 4.4. It is contended that this Court vide order dtd.21.07.2023 while disposing the matter in WPC (OAC) No.1404 / 2015 permitted the Petitioner to make a detailed representation before Opposite Party No.2 for consideration of her claim by enclosing all the relevant documents in support of her claim and for its consideration. Page 3 of 7 // 4 // 4.5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 21.07.2023 under Annexure-16, Petitioner made a detailed representation under Annexure-17 indicating therein that the mark secured by her in the B.Ed. examination will be 77.5000% in place of 57.000%, Petitioner also enclosed the document issued by the University under Annexure-11 along with the representation. 4.6. It is contended that without proper appreciation of the claim made by the Petitioner under Annexure-17 and the clarification issued by the university under Annexure-11, by taking the B.Ed. mark of the Petitioner at 57.000%, her claim was again rejected vide the impugned order dtd.25.10.2023.
Legal Reasoning
4.7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in terms of Annexure-11 Petitioner’s mark in the B.Ed. will come to 77.5000%. But without accepting the same and taking her mark at 57.000%, Petitioner’s claim has been rejected. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand made his submissions basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. Page 4 of 7 // 5 // 5.1. It is contended that in the provisional tabulation sheet issued under Annexure-6, the mark of the Petitioner in the B.Ed. was indicated at 77.5000% basing on the application made by the Petitioner in that regard. Subsequently on proper calculation when it was found that the Petitioner’s mark in the B.Ed. is 57.000%, the same was duly noticed with publication of a notice under Annexure-8. Petitioner though filed an objection under Annexure-9, but no document was enclosed showing that the percentage of mark secured by her in the B.Ed. will be 77.5000%. 5.2. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State also contended that Petitioner in the her B.Ed. examination, as per the certificate enclosed under Annexure-1-Series, passed the same from Andhra University and in the said mark sheet available at Page- 21, no mark has been awarded and only grade was awarded to the Petitioner. Nothing has also been indicated in the said certificate what is the total mark Petitioner secured in the theory and practical save and except indicating the Theory GPA at 4.67 and practical GPA at 7.73. But the Petitioner on her own made a calculation showing her B.Ed. mark at 77.5000% and submitted the same along with the representation under Annexure-12. Since the calculation relied on by the Petitioner in her representation under Annexure-12 is without any basis, the same was not accepted by Page 5 of 7 // 6 // Opposite Party No.2 while rejecting the claim vide the impugned order. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner’s claim has been rightly rejected. It is also further contended that the selection is of the year 2015 and in the meantime process of selection has already been completed. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-2 and the corrigendum issued under Annexure- 3, Petitioner made the application as against post of contractual TGT (Arts). Petitioner in support of her qualification of B.Ed. submitted the certificate issued by the Andhra University under Annexure-1-Series. 6.1. Even though in the provisional tabulation sheet, Petitioner’s mark in the B.Ed. was indicated as 77.5000%, but since no mark was awarded in the B.Ed. Examination available under Annexure-1-Series, the authorities after due calculation found the same at 57.000%. The same was indicated while issuing the notice under Annexure-8. Petitioner though filed an objection under Annexure-9, but thereafter vide Annexure-12, Petitioner calculated her B.Ed. mark at 77.5000% relying on the certificate issued by the University under Annxure-11. This Court however finds that while issuing the certificate under Annexure-11, the Page 6 of 7 // 7 // University has not calculated the percentage of mark of the Petitioner at 77.5000%. Petitioner while making the representation under Annexure-12 suo-moto calculated the same at 77.5000%. 6.2. Since this Court does not find any document issued by the University showing that Petitioner has secured 77.5000% in her B.Ed. examination and no such document was ever produced by the Petitioner along with her representation on the face of the order passed by this Court on the earlier occasion, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order dtd.25.10.2023 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-18. 7. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere
Decision
with the same and dismiss the writ petition. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Sep-2024 10:55:01 Page 7 of 7