Orissa High Court
Tarjan Patra vs State Of Odisha And Others on 26 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.235 of 2018
Tarjan Patra .... Appellant
Ms. Saswati Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondents
Mr. M.K. Khuntia, A.G.A. for the State
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 26.10.2022
Dr. S. Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.
06. 1. The challenge in the present writ appeal is to a judgment dated
25th April 2018, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing
W.P.(C) No.6271 of 2016 filed by the present Appellant.
2. The aforementioned writ petition was filed by the Appellant
questioning the selection of Respondent No.4 herein for the post of
Grama Rozgar Sevak (GRS) on the ground that he lacks the
essential qualification of 10+2.
3. The background facts are that an advertisement dated 7th
November 2015 was issued calling for applications from intending
candidates for the aforementioned post. While the present
Appellant had passed 10+2, as far as Respondent No.4 was
concerned, he possessed a diploma qualification. The
advertisement in question inter alia stipulated that the candidate
must possess the following qualification:
"(c) Qualification: 10 +2 Pass and preference will be
given to commerce stream having computer
proficiency of "O" Level with use of Odia language in
Computer."
4. Undoubtedly, the advertisement was silent on what equivalent
qualification was acceptable. As it transpired, both the Appellant
and Respondent No.4 had applied for the post. The Appellant
scored 53.70% marks in HSC and +2 whereas Respondent No.4
secured 73.54% marks. However, the Respondent No.4 had a
diploma in Engineering.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents-State
authorities, a reference was made to a Notification dated 25th June,
2014 of the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar wherein it was stated that a 3 years Diploma Course
in Engineering Branch conducted by SCTE & VT, Odisha would
be equivalent to the +2 Science stream conducted by the CHSE,
Odisha having basic foundation subjects like Physics, Chemistry,
Mathematics and English. This was to take effect from 16th
November, 2013, which was prior to the date of the advertisement
in question, i.e. 7th November, 2015.
6. The question that then arose was whether the above notification
could have been applied when the advertisement issued on 7th
November, 2015 was silent as to the qualifications equivalent to
the +2 qualification. This was answered in the affirmative by the
learned Single Judge inter alia on the ground that the
aforementioned notification dated 25th June 2014 was not
challenged and inasmuch as it was prior to the advertisement, there
is no illegality committed in applying such notification.
7. Ms. Saswati Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellant has
placed reliance on the decisions in Bedanga Talukdar v.
Saifudaullah Khan (2011) 12 SCC 85 and Prakash Chand Meena
v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 8 SCC 484 to contend that there has
to be a strict adherence to the qualification norms as spelt out in the
advertisement. The equivalent qualification which was not
specifically mentioned as regards could not have been applied by
the authorities at the stage of selection.
8. In Bedanga Talukdar (supra), the well settled principle that the
selection process had to be conducted "strictly in accordance with
the stipulated selection procedure" was reiterated. It is also held
that there cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions in
the advertisement "unless such power is specifically reserved."
It was noticed that "in the absence of such power in the Rules, it
could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of
relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity." In the facts
of that case, it was found that the advertisement did not spell out
any power of relaxation and it was also not in the Rules.
9. However, in the present case, while there may not have been any
specific Rule recognizing equivalence of the Diploma in
Engineering with 10+2, a Notification was issued by the CHSE,
Odisha on 25th June, 2014, which was a public document. This was
prior to the advertisement itself. Therefore, it was not as if any new
Rule or new norm has been introduced beyond the advertisement.
Consequently, the said decision is of no assistance to the
Appellant.
10. As far as the decision in Prakash Chand Meena (supra) is
concerned, there the question was whether the candidates
possessing the qualification of B.P.Ed are eligible and State
Government could have issued directions of inclusion of B.P.Ed.
qualification in the zone of eligibility for appointment to the post
of Physical Training Instructor Gr III when it was not so mentioned
in the advertisement? The Supreme Court in the facts of that case
answered the question in the negative, and held that: "In the matter
of eligibility qualification, the equivalent qualification must be
recognised as such in the recruitment rules or government order
existing on or before the initiation of recruitment process."
(emphasis supplied) In the present case, as already noted, the
equivalence was recognised by a government notification issued
much prior to the commencement of the recruitment process.
11. Consequently, this Court is not satisfied that any ground has
been made out for interference with the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the present appeal and it
is dismissed as such.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
S.K. Guin
