The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.42034 of 2023 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Rajat Kumar Mishra …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioners : Mr. S. Das, Advocate For Opp. Parties :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.K. Samal Addl. Govt. Advocate PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 25.01.2024 and Date of Judgment: 04.03.2024 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. The present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore humbly prayed that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to issue: I) A Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto, to call upon the Opp. Party no.03 to 26 to show cause as under what authority they hold the office; II) A Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto, to call upon the Opp. Party no.02 to show cause as under what authority they have recruited Opp. Party no.03 to 26 for the post of Assistant Professor (Teacher Education) Stage-1 in different disciplines of Government Teachers Training Institutes; III) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus, to declare the appointment/ recruitment of the Opp. Party no. 03 to 26 to be // 2 // Illegal as well as Void Ab Initio & subsequently oust the Opp. Party no. 03 to 26 from their office for not holding the requisite qualification. And may pass any other appropriate Writ/Writs and order/orders which this Hon’ble Court deem fit, just and proper. And for which act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 2. It is the main allegation of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Odisha Public Service Commission (in short Commission) for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (Teacher Education-Stage-I) in different discipline of the Govt. Teacher’s Training Institute under Department of Higher Education so published vide Advertisement No. 09 of 2021- 22, Private Opp. Party Nos. 3 to 26 though don’t have the requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, but they were selected and recommended by the Commission and consequentially all of them got the benefit of appointment. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that in the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 the educational qualification prescribed for the post of Asst. Professor more fully described in Para 4 of the advertisement reads as follows:- “4. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION: A candidate must: (A) possess a Master’s Degree or dual Master’s Degrees for the post of Assistant Professor (Teacher Education), if the guidelines of National Council for Teacher Education so demands, with at least 55% of marks or its equivalent grade in the concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University or an equivalent Degree from a Foreign University. Page 2 of 10 // 3 // Provided that for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, SEBC & Persons with Disabilities categories, the requirement of securing at least 55% marks shall be reduced to 50% marks or its equivalent grade. (B) have cleared National Eligibility Test (NET) meant for Assistant Professor (Stage-I) or must have acquired a Ph.D. Degree in the concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University or a Foreign University OR NET in Education OR Ph.D. in Education. . (C) The details of the essential qualifications for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor (Teacher Education)-Stage-I are mentioned at Annexure-A to this advertisement.” 3.1. It is contended that such qualification under Para-4 was prescribed in the advertisement under Annexure-1, in terms of the rules framed by the Govt in the Department of Higher Education vide Notification dtd.18.02.2021 under Annexure-2 i.e. Odisha Education Service (College Branch) Recruitment Rules, 2020. It is contended that as provided under Rule 6 of the said rules, the eligibility criteria for direct recruitment is provided as follows:- “6. Eligibility criteria for Direct Recruitment.- In order to be eligible for direct recruitment, a candidate must, - (i) be a citizen of India. (ii) not be above 45 years of age as on the last date of receiving application fixed by the Commission: Provided that relaxation in the upper age limit in respect of different categories of candidates referred to in rule 4 shall be made in accordance with relevant Acts. Rules, Resolutions, Notifications or Orders issued by the Government from time to time. (iii) be able to read, write and speak in Odia. (iv) have passed Upper Primary examination, or its equivalent, with Odia as a subject. (v) possess a Master’s Degree, or Dual Master’s Degrees for the post of Assistant Professor (Teacher Education) if the guidelines of National Council for Teacher Education so demands, with at least 55% of marks or its equivalent grade, in the concerned/ relevant/ allied subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign university: Provided that for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste. Scheduled Tribe and Persons with Disabilities Page 3 of 10 // 4 // categories, the requirement of securing at least 55% marks shall be reduced to 50% marks or its equivalent grade. Explanation:- Assistant Professor (Teacher Education) post is meant for teaching of students pursuing B.Ed and M.Ed courses or similar teacher education courses as different from Assistant Professor (Education) post which is meant for teaching of students on ’Education’ as a subject in general under graduate and post-graduate courses. (vi) have cleared National Eligibility Test (NET) meant for appointment of Assistant Professor (Stage-l) or must have acquired a Ph.D. Degree in the concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University or a Foreign University.” 3.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that even though Petitioner was not an applicant as against the post in question pursuant to the advertisement issued vide Annexure-1, but on coming to know that Opp. Party Nos. 3 to 26 have been selected and appointed without having the requisite qualification, the present writ petition has been filed challenging such selection and appointment of the private Opp. Parties. The stand taken by the Petitioner in Para 6, 7 & 10 of the writ petition are reproduced hereunder:- “6. That now as the aforementioned advertisement as well as the rules of 2020 expressively specifies that the candidate applying for the position of "Assistant Professor (Teacher Education) Stage-1" must possess "a Master’s Degree or Dual Master’s Degrees, if the guidelines of National Council for Teacher Education (Herein referred as the NCTE) so demands"; it is absolutely relevant to mention that the NCTE through its Regulation, 2014’s Appendix-4 specifies the "Norms and Standards for bachelor of education programme leading to the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) Degree". (That the NCTE Regulations, 2014’s Appendix-4 is herein annexed as Annexure- 3). That the relevant extract of the NCTE Regulations, 2014’s Appendix-4 is herein versed below: 5 (C) Curriculum and Pedagogic Courses i) Postgraduate degree in Sciences/Mathematics/ Social Sciences/ Languages with minimum 55% marks, (ii) M.Ed. degree with minimum 55% marks. Page 4 of 10 // 5 // Desirable: PhD degree in Education with subject Specializations. 7. That the Appendix-4 clearly specifies that a candidate applying for the Curriculum and Pedagogic Course (posts of Assistant Professor (Teacher Education)) must possess Dual Master’s degree ((i) Postgraduate degree in Sciences/ Mathematics/ Social Sciences/ Languages with minimum 55% marks. & (ii) M.Ed. degree with minimum 55% marks), it is no wrong to mention that the Dual Master’s degree (with minimum 55% marks each) is a condition precedent stipulated by the NCTE & a candidate applying for the post of Assistant Professor (Teacher Education) can only be selected if he/she is having/ possessing a Dual Master’s degree (with minimum 55% marks each). xxx xxx xxx 10. That the Petitioner is a private teacher & isn’t a person who has participated in the recruitment process of the aforementioned posts of Education) OPSC.” 3.3. It is contended that since Private Opp. Parties in terms of the advertisement r.w. Relevant Rules don’t have the requisite qualification i.e. Dual Master’s degree, they are not eligible to be selected and appointed and accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed challenging their illegal selection and appointment. With regard to
Decision
maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the Petitioner, who is admittedly not an applicant for the post in question so advertised under Annexure-1, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2013 (1) SCC 501 (Rajesh Awasthy Vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal & Ors.). Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 31 & 33 of the said Judgment has held as follows:- “31. From the aforesaid pronouncements it is graphically clear that a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto and he stands in the position of a relater. He need not have any special interest or personal interest. The real test is to see whether the person Page 5 of 10 // 6 //