Orissa High Court
Mamita Kumari Patel vs // 3 // on 17 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC(OAC) No.1215 of 2016
Mamita Kumari Patel .... Petitioner
Mr. Jagdish Biswal, proxy counsel
on behalf of Mr. Prakash Kumar
Rout, Advocate
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. R.N. Acharya, Standing Counsel
for School & Mass Education
CORAM:
JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 17.02.2023
04. 1. The Petitioner challenged the action of the Opposite Parties in
rejecting the application for the post of Contract Teacher (Hindi) on
the ground that she obtained less percentage of mark in the
graduation and it is objected to by the Petitioner that such a reason
is not in conformity with the resolution dated 27.10.2014.
2. The case of the Petitioner is that at the time of submission of
application form, the Petitioner furnished copy of Rashtrabhasa
Ratna Certificate, which is declared equivalent to B.A. Degree. It is
stated that for the post of Hindi Teacher, the resolution dated
27.10.2014 provided that a candidate with Rashtrabhasa Ratna from
Rashtrabhasa Prachar Samiti Wardha with 45% of marks could
apply. In the present case the Petitioner has secured more than 47%
of marks in Rashtrabhasa Ratna in examination, yet her name was
reflected in the reject list with the remarks 'less percentage of mark
in graduation'. Even though the Petitioner proffered objection to the
said list, the same turned out to be vained attempt.
// 2 //
3. Mr. Jagdish Biswal, proxy counsel on behalf of Mr. P.K. Rout,
learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the qualification
has been prescribed for Hindi Teacher in the Resolution bearing
No. 23404/SME dated 27th October, 2014. In the advertisement for
the year 2014-15, footnote has been appended which stated as
follows:-
"(The untrained candidates shall have to undergo required
training within the timeline as prescribed by Govt.)".
Therefore, by necessary implication it may be construed
that in absence of training qualification untrained candidate can also
make application and the successful candidate is required to
undergo training within the time specified by the Govt. Mr. Biswal,
has further submitted that there is no dispute that the Petitioner has
requisite qualification for appointment as contract teacher.
However, her qualification Rashtrabhasa Ratna having more than
47% of marks has not been taken into consideration for the purpose
of eligibility for the post of Hindi Teacher.
4. Mr. Acharya, learned Standing Counsel for the School & Mass
Education submitted that in Bachelor of Arts examination held by
Sambalpur University reveals the Petitioner having secured 42.73%
of marks. Hence, she is not eligible for engagement as Hindi
Teacher (contractual).
5. Mr. Jagdish Biswal, learned proxy counsel cited judgment dated
15.09.2021 rendered in the case of Satyabrata Nayak and Others
vs. State of Odisha; WPC (OAC) No. 902 of 2016, etc. etc. and
// 3 //
order dated 23.07.2021 passed in Nihar Ranjan Sarangi vs. State
of Odisha and Others; WPC (OAC) No.1976 of 2015 and
submitted that the issues raised in the present case are squarely
covered by the said two judgments.
6. In Satyabrata Nayak and Others (supra), this Court taking into
consideration Resolution dated 27.10.2014 held as follows:-
"xxxx xxxxxx If untrained candidates can have right to
make application and subsequently they can undergo
required training within the timeline as prescribed by the
Government, submission of their applications even as
untrained candidates, cannot be said to be faulted with.
Rather, their applications should have been considered as
untrained candidates for selection to the post of Contract
Teacher (Hindi) and they should have been allowed to
undergo required training within the timeline as
prescribed by the Government. As such, the present
petitioners stand on a better footing in accordance with
the stipulation made in clause-3(f) of the resolution dated
27.10.2014. Meaning thereby, even though they had
applied as untrained candidates and undergone training,
but result thereof was not published by the time they
submitted their applications. But before consideration of
their applications, they had already acquired the
qualification of training and, thereby, their applications
should not and could not have been rejected by the
authority stating "B.Ed. after 06.04.2015" or "certificate
produced after 06.04.2015" and, as such, disqualifying
them from participating in the process of selection is
absolutely non-application of mind by the authority and
unwarranted. Similar view has already been taken by this
Court in Nihar Ranjan Sarangi (supra)."
6.1 In Nihar Ranjan Sarangi vs. State of Odisha and Others
(supra), this Court discussed the purport the aforesaid resolution
and observed as follows:-
// 4 //
"xxxxxxSince the Petitioner was fulfilling all the
required qualification for the post of Contractual Hindi
Teacher in Government Schools in 2014-15 pursuant to
the resolution vide Annexure-4, this Court directs, in the
event the Petitioner fulfills other conditions, the
competent authority to draw a fresh select list of
Contractual Hindi Teacher in Government Schools
pursuant to the advertisement in question forthwith,
preferably within a period one month and in the event the
name of the Petitioner finds place within the required
candidate, the Petitioner shall be appointed against the
said post. In the event there is possibility of disturbing
any of the selected person, such person may be provided
with opportunity. For the Petitioner going to get the
benefit through this judgment and as the litigation
process involving the Petitioner continued for over six
years, this Court further directs, in the event the
Petitioner gets appointment on re-drawl of fresh selection
list, the Petitioner be treated to have been recruited in the
post of Contractual Hindi Teacher in the year 2014-15
and so far as arrear is concerned, it shall be calculated
notionally. However, the other entitlements provided to
the similarly situated persons during this period shall be
calculated for the purpose of fixation of scale of pay of
the Petitioner presently and this period will also be
calculated for the purpose of pensionary benefit, if any."
7. In view of aforesaid submission and interpretation of the
eligibility criteria contained in the aforesaid resolution for the
purpose of Hindi Teacher, the Petitioner is granted liberty to
approach the Opposite Party No.3-Director of Secondary
Education, Odisha with comprehensive representation enclosing the
testimonials and cite the decisions rendered by this Court within a
period of four weeks from today. In such eventuality, the said
Opposite Party shall consider the grievance of the Petitioner and
take a decision within a period of three months from the date of
// 5 //
appearance of the Petitioner before him and communicate decision
taken in this regard to the Petitioner.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Aks
