Orissa High Court
Smrutirekha Biswal vs State Of Odisha on 27 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK.
WPC(OAC) No. 1376 of 2017
(An Application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Smrutirekha Biswal
Binita Prajapati
Chitralekha Mohanta
Gangotri Ghosh ... Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Odisha
and Others ... Opposite parties
Advocates appeared in the case:
For the Petitioners : M/s. Kunal Kumar Swain and
Soubhagya Chandra Dev Dash,
Advocates
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G.R. Mohapatra,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Date of Hearing 16.12.2022 :: Date of Judgment: 27.01.2023
JUDGMENT
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.--
1. The petitioners, claiming to have fulfilled eligibility criteria
for the post of "HINDI TEACHER" (Contractual), moved the
Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, with a prayer to quash the Notice
dated 17.05.2017 (Annexure-10) whereby the Provisional
Select List and the Provisional Select List of Hindi Teacher
and Sanskrit Teacher published vide Notice dated
22.11.2016 stood cancelled and Revised Provisional Merit
List (Annexure-11), and grant following reliefs:
"*** the impugned cancellation Notice dated 17.05.2017
under Annexure-10 and the subsequent revised provisional
select list dated 17.05.2017 under Annexure-11 may be
quashed/set aside and necessary direction may be made to
the respondents to issue engagement orders for the post of
Hindi Teacher in favour of the applicants as they have
already been selected which is evident from the first
provisional select list and on the basis of their position as
agreements have already been executed, within a time to be
stipulated by this Hon'ble Tribunal or in the alternative,
any other order/orders or direction/directions may be
issued so as to give complete relief to the applicant."
1.1. The learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal vide Order
dated 02.06.2017, passed the following order:
"3. 02.06.2017 P.P. No.176(C)/2017
Heard Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel for the
applicants and learned standing counsel the relief
sought for the same, the joint
As the grievance and the relief sought for by the
applicants is one and the same, the joint application
is entertained the as per Rule 4(4)(a) of the OAT(P)
Rules. P.P. is disposed of and it be registered as O.A.
The applicants pursuant to the advertisement for the
post of Hindi teacher vide Annexure-1 submitted
application and have been selected as per the order
vide Annexure-6. Thereafter they entered into
agreement on 29.11.2016 and while waiting for their
engagement, the impugned order of cancellation vide
annexure-10 was issued and revised merit list vide
annexure-11 was published. Learned counsel for the
applicants submitted that preparation of the revised
merit list is not in accordance with the stipulation
made in the advertisement and hence is illegal and
liable to be quashed and as an interim measure, it is
submitted to stay the cancellation of the select list
and direct not to take any action pursuant to the
revised merit list and to stay the order of
cancellation.
Learned Standing Counsel seeks time to take
instruction in the matter.
Considering the submission, issue notice on
admission and list this matter in the 1st week of July,
2017, by which date counter be filed positively. As
the candidates who have been selected as per the
revised merit list have not been impleaded as parties,
we are not inclined to stay the revised merit list or
the order of cancellation but direct to maintain status
quo as on the date till the next date.
In view of the interim order passed, the O.A. is likely
to be disposed of at the stage of admission.
Send copies."
1.2. Subsequent thereto the learned Odisha Administrative
Tribunal allowed impletion of affected parties and passed
the following Order on 11.09.2017:
"6. 11.09.2017 M.P.832(C)/17 in O.A.1376(C)/17
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned
Addl. Standing Counsel.
The applicant has filed this petition for amendment of
the O.A. by way of impleading the persons who have
been subsequently appointed as per the schedule
attached to the petition. Besides, by amendment of
the O.A, the applicant has challenged the order
dtd.17.5.2017 vide annexure-10 and the provisional
select list vide annexure-11.
It is submitted that the proposed amendment do not
change the nature and character of the O.A. but is
necessary for proper adjudication.
Learned Addl. Standing Counsel has no objection.
Considering the submission, as the amendment
sought for is formal in nature, the petition is allowed.
Let the O.A, be amended by incorporating the
pleading as per the schedule attached to petition.
A consolidated O.A. be filed within a period of two
weeks.
The cause title be corrected accordingly.
List this matter in the 4th week of October, 2017.
M.P. is disposed of."
1.3. Though notice was issued vide Memo No.2015, dated
27.03.2018 to the newly added parties from the Office of
the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, at the time of hearing
before this Court (as the Original Application is converted
to Writ Petition after abolition of the Odisha Administrative
Tribunal by virtue of Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and
Training) Notification F. No. A-11014/10/2015-AT
[G.S.R.552(E).], dated 2nd August, 2019) none appeared for
opposite party Nos.4 to 9. However, the opposite party
Nos.1 to 3 contested the matter through Additional Standing
Counsel.
1.4. Since the matter has been pending since 2017, this case has
been heard and disposed of. At the outset, Mr. Kunal
Kumar Swain, learned counsel for the petitioners has not
pressed the matter qua petitioner No.4, namely Gangotri
Ghosh and confined his arguments with respect to the
petitioner Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, the writ petition is
dismissed so far as the petitioner No.4 is concerned.
Fact of the case:
2. Responding to the Advertisement No.7640/DWO, dated
15th December, 2015, for recruitment for the post of
Contractual Teaching Staff in Educational Complexes and
Schools under ST and SC Development Department in
Mayurbhanj District issued by the Collector & District
Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, and subsequent Corrigendum
dated 31st December, 2015 to said advertisement, the
petitioners applied for the post of "HINDI TEACHER".
2.1. Following eligibility criteria was specified in the
Advertisement dated 15.12.2015:
"For the post of Hindi Teacher, an applicant must have
passed Bachelor Degree Exam. from a recognised
University with Hindi as one of the elective subject or with
Rastrabhasha Ratna from Rastrabasha Prachar Samiti
Wadha or with Shastri from Odisha Rastra Bhasa Parisad,
Puri or with Snatak (acquired by June 2005, the date upto
which temporary recognition had been granted) from Hindi
Sikshya Samiti, Odisha, Cuttack or an equivalent Degree
from a recognised Institution and Hindi Shikshyan
Parangat from Kendriya Hindi Sansthan Agra/Hindi
Teacher Training Certificate Course from Hindi Training
Institute, Cuttack/Bhubaneswar/Sambalpur."
2.2. On 31.12.2015, a Corrigendum bearing No.7940/DWO,
dated 31st December, 2015 to the Advertisement
No.7640/DWO, dated 15th December, 2015 was issued
wherein the following eligibility criteria has been specified:
"For the post of Hindi Teacher, an applicant must have
passed Bachelor Degree Exam. from a recognised
University with Hindi as one of the elective subject or with
Rastrabhasha Ratna from Rastrabhasha Prachar Samiti,
Wardha or with Shastri from Odisha Rastra Bhasa Parisad,
Puri or with Snatak (acquired by June, 2005 the date upto
which temporary recognition had been granted) from Hindi
Sikshya Samiti, Odisha, Cuttack or an equivalent Degree
from a recognised Institution and Hindi Shikshyan
Parangat from Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra/B.H.Ed. (a
course prescribed by NCTE) from a Institution recognized
by NCTE and affiliated to a recognized University/B.Ed. in
(a course prescribes by NCTE) from Dakhin Bharat Hindi
Prachar Sabha, Madras, an Institution recognized by NCTE
and affiliated to a recognized University
OR
Bachelor's Degree with Hindi as one of the optional/Hons.
Subject from a recognized University and M.A. from a
recognized University.
The trained candidates shall have to undergo the required
training within a stipulated period as decided by Govt. from
time to time.
[First preference is to be given to the trained candidates.]"
2.3. Ms. Smrutirekha Biswal, petitioner No.1, has passed Shastri
Examination from Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya
in the year 2014 with Second Class Honours. She has also
passed Bachelor of Education from Dakshina Bharat Hindi
Prachar Sabha, Madras in First Class in 2015. She has also
qualified Rashtrabhasha-- Ratna from Rashtrabhasha
Prachar Samiti, Wardha in the year 2013.
2.4. The petitioner No.2, namely Ms. Binita Prajapati, has
passed Bachelor of Arts without Hindi as elective subject in
the year 2013 from North Orissa University. She qualified
Bachelor of Education from Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar
Sabha, Madras in First Class in the year 2015. She also
passed Rashtrabhasha-- Ratna from Rashtrabhasha Prachar
Samiti, Wardha in the year 2013.
2.5. Ms. Chitralekha Mohanta, petitioner No.3, passed Three
Year Degree Course Examination, 2009 from North Orissa
University; Rashtrabhasha Shastri from Odisha Rashtra
Bhasa Parishad, Puri in the year 2014; and qualified
Bachelor of Education in the year 2015 in First Class from
Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras.
2.6. It is the case of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 that they have
requisite qualifications as on the date of advertisement and
on the date of corrigendum thereto. All these three
petitioners were found to be eligible in the select list
published on 22.11.2016, wherein the petitioner No.1 was at
serial No.2, the petitioner No.2 was at serial No.4 and the
petitioner No.3 was at serial No.1. All the three petitioners
being called for verification of original documents, they
appeared on 29.11.2016 in the Office of District Welfare
Officer, Mayurbhanj and on the said date agreements were
executed between the petitioners and the authorities and
their respective placements as Hindi Teachers in different
schools were also disclosed.
2.7. However, the Collector and District Magistrate,
Mayurbhanj issued Notice No.3192/DWO, dated 17th May,
2017 indicating cancellation of Provisional Merit List of
Hindi Teachers and Sanskrit Teachers published on
22.11.2016 and directed the candidates of the Hindi and
Sanskrit posts in the Revised Provisional Select List to
attend for verification of original certificates.
2.8. Since the names of the petitioners did not find place in the
said Revised Select List, they have approached the learned
Odisha Administrative Tribunal by way of filing Original
Application under Section 19 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985.
Argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioners:
3. Sri Kunal Kumar Swain, learned counsel has brought the
attention of this Court to the document at Annexure-6 to the
writ petition which is titled "PROVISIONAL SELECT LIST OF
APPLICANTS FOR THE POSTS OF HINDI TEACHERS
(CONTRACTUAL) IN EDUCATIONAL COMPLEXES AND
SCHOOLS UNDER SSD DEPTT. IN MAYURBHANJ FOR 2015".
In the said document it has been clearly acknowledged that
the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 have trained B.Ed. qualification
with "Ratna"/"Shastri" and they have been awarded total
percentage of marks at 253.15, 251.66 and 253.84
respectively. Further he has placed on record comparative
chart and demonstrated that at the time of publication of
revised select list, the percentage of marks secured in
Ratna/Shastri has been excluded. Therefore, the learned
counsel submitted that had that been taken into
consideration the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 would have been in
the position of 2nd, 4th and 1st respectively.
3.1. Even though the petitioners are found to have the requisite
eligibility criteria as specified in the Advertisement dated
15.12.2015 read with Corrigendum thereto dated
31.12.2015, the cases of the petitioners have been side-
tracked.
3.2. Referring to "Equivalence Degree" as recognized vide
Document dated 31.07.2012 signed by Deputy Registrar
(Special Cell) of the Utkal University, Vani Vihar,
Bhubaneswar, Sri Kunal Kumar Swain, learned advocate
for the petitioners submitted that "Rastrabhasha Ratna" has
been treated as equivalent to "+3 pass and Elective Hindi"
and Odisha Rastrabhasa Parisad, Puri has been recognized
as "Rashtra Bhasha with +3 Hindi Pass". He further relied
on Letter No.F.9-4/72-D-1(L), dated 26th July, 1979, issued
by the Government of India, Ministry of Education &
Social Welfare (Department of Education), New Delhi
addressed to the Secretary, Odisha Rastrabhasa Parisad to
contend that "Shastri" has been declared as equivalent to
"B.A.".
3.3. In such view of the matter, the marks awarded to the
petitioners in such examinations could not have been
ignored while preparing revised select list. The opposite
parties fell in grave error in not taking into consideration the
percentage of marks obtained in Ratna/Shastri Examination
while computing total marks obtained.
3.4. It was further argued that under one Government two
different sets of systems of computation of marks for the
post of HINDI TEACHER could not have been adopted in two
different districts. Sri Swain urged that the action of the
opposite parties attracts vice of Article 14 of the
Constitution inasmuch as in the Keonjhar District while
publishing the select list for the post of HINDI TEACHERS the
marks secured by the candidates in Ratna/Shastri
Examination(s) have been taken into consideration (vide
Annexure-18 enclosed to Rejoinder), whereas in the revised
select list published in the Mayurbhanj District percentage
of marks obtained in such examination(s) were excluded
while computing total marks. Such a course is not only
unintelligible but also indicative of arbitrariness which
smacks whims of the opposite parties.
3.5. Mr. Kunal Kumar Swain submitted that meritorious
candidates having qualifications, such as B.A., B.Ed. and
Ratna/Shastri have not been given due weight even though
they were found at Serial Nos.2nd, 4th and 1st respectively.
Arguments advanced by the learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 to 3:
4. Learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that
revised select list was published so as to "recruit the best
efficient candidates for the post of Hindi Teacher in
consonance with the guidelines provided in Resolution
dated 27.10.2014".
4.1. It is submitted that "in the first selection of marks secured
in Ratna and Shastri subjects by the petitioners have been
taken for computerization of marks", but in the
second/revised select list, "the marks secured in Ratna and
Shastri were not taken into consideration for
computerization of marks as per decision of the Selection
Committee in consonance with the Resolution No.23395
dated 27.10.2014 issued by the Government of Odisha in
School and Mass Education Department". Therefore, when
the marks secured in Ratna/Shastri are excluded from total
marks while preparing revised select list, the petitioner
Nos.1 to 3 did not get berth within the zone of selection. It
is further urged that "in the zone of selection of 12
candidates, i.e., double the vacancy, the petitioner Nos.1
and 2 were placed at Serial No.10 and 8 of the second
selection list" and the petitioner No.3 could not even come
within the selection of 12 candidates.
4.2. It is vehemently objected to that the petitioners did not fulfil
the eligibility criteria as per extant provisions of law and the
guidelines.
Consideration of rival contentions and decision of the Court:
5. Analysis of eligibility criteria for HINDI TEACHER as
contained in Advertisement dated 15.12.2015 read with
Corrigendum dated 31.12.2015 vis-à-vis Resolution
No.23395-VIII-(B)-SME-(X)-231/2014/SME, dated
27.10.2014 would depict as follows:
Advertisement Corrigendum Resolution No.23395,
dated 15.12.2015 dated 31.12.2015 dated 27.10.2014
For the post of For the post of HINDI The S&ME Department have
HINDI TEACHER, TEACHER, an prescribed the common qualification
an applicant must applicant must have of Hindi Teachers in Government,
have Fully Aided and Block Grant High
passed Bachelor Schools vide Resolution No.3424,
passed Bachelor Degree Exam. from a dated the 18th February, 2008,
Degree Exam. recognised University No.7685, dated 12th May, 2009,
from a recognised No.6552, dated 29.03.2011 and
University with Hindi as one of Addendum No.25114/SME, dated
the elective subject 03.10.2012.
with Hindi as one
of the elective or In spite of the above common
subject qualification in Hindi are not
with Rastrabhasha available in the State as a result large
or Ratna from numbers of posts of Hindi Teachers
Rastrabhasha are lying vacant in such institutions.
with Rastrabhasha Prachar Samiti,
Ratna from Wadha Now, therefore, the Government after
Rastrabasha careful consideration of the matter
Prachar Samiti, or have decided to prescribe the
Wadha qualification of Hindi Teachers in the
with Shastri from following order of preference for
or Odisha Rastra Bhasa providing quality and better
Parisad, Puri education to the students.
with Shastri from
Odisha Rastra or Bachelor's degree from a recognized
Bhasa Parisad, University with Hindi as one the
Puri with Snatak elective subject with minimum 50%
(acquired by June marks in aggregate (45% for
or 2005, the date upto SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates)
which temporary
with Snatak recognition had been
(acquired by June granted) from Hindi or
2005, the date Sikshya Samiti,
upto which Odisha, Cuttack with Rastrabhasa Ratna from
temporary Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti, Wardha
recognition had or or with Sastri from Orissa
been granted) Rastrabhasa Parisada, Puri
from Hindi an equivalent Degree
Sikshya Samiti, from a recognised or
Odisha, Cuttack Institution and Hindi
Shikshyan Parangat with Snataka (Acquired by June-
or from Kendriya Hindi 2005, the date up to which the
Sansthan, Agra/ temporary recognition has been
an equivalent BH.Ed. (a course granted) from Hindi Sikshaya Samiti,
Degree from a prescribed by NCTE) Orissa, Cuttack
recognised from a Institution
Institution and recognized by NCTE or
Hindi Shikshyan and affiliated to a
Parangat from recognized an equivalent degree from a
Kendriya Hindi University/B.Ed. in (a recognized institution with at least
Sansthan course prescribed by 50% marks in aggregate (45% for
Agra/Hindi NCTE) from Dakhin SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates
Teacher Training Bharat Hindi and Hindi Sikshyan Parangat from
Certificate Course Prachar Sabha, Kendriya Hindi Sansthan,
from Hindi Madras, an Agra/B.H.Ed (a course prescribed by
Training Institute, Institution recognized NCTE) from a Institution recognized
Cuttack/Bhubanes by NCTE and by NCTE and affiliated to a
war/ Sambalpur. affiliated to a recognized university/B.Ed. in Hindi
recognized (a course prescribed by NCTE) from
[First preference University. Dakhin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha,
is to be given to Madras, a institution recognized by
the candidates, OR NCTE and affiliated to a recognized
who have passed university,
Teachers Training Bachelor's Degree OR
Certificate Course with Hindi as one of
from Hindi the optional/Hons. Bachelor's Degree with Hindi as one
Training subject from a of the optional/Hons. subject with
Institutes.] recognized University 50% of marks in aggregate (45% for
and M.A. from a SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates)
recognized from a recognized University and
University. M.A. in Hindi with minimum 50%
marks in aggregate from a
The untrained recognized University.
candidates shall have
to undergo the The untrained candidates shall have
required training wit to undergo the required training
in a stipulated period within a stipulated period as decided
as decided by Govt. by Govt. from time to time.
from time to time
[First preference is to The S&ME Deptt. Resolution
be given to the No.6552/SME, dated 29.03.2011 is
trained candidates] modified to the above extent.
This will come into force with
immediate effect.
5.1. Bare perusal of the above would suggest that so far as Ms.
Smrutirekha Biswal, petitioner No.1, is concerned, she has
acquired Shastri qualification from Shri Jagannath Sanskrit
Vishvavidyalaya; Bachelor of Education from Dakshina
Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras; and Rashtrabhasha--
Ratna from Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti, Wardha. As per
Corrigendum dated 31.12.2015 to the Advertisement dated
15.12.2015, a candidate is eligible for the post of HINDI
TEACHER if he/she passed Bachelor Degree Examination
from a recognised University with Rastrabhasha Ratna from
Rastrabhasha Prachar Samiti, Wardha or with Shastri from
Odisha Rastra Bhasa Parisad, Puri. Therefore, the petitioner
is found to have fulfilled the conditions laid in the aforesaid
Advertisement read with Corrigendum thereto.
5.2. So far as Ms. Binita Prajapati, petitioner No.2, is concerned,
she has passed Bachelor of Arts from North Orissa
University; Bachelor of Education from Dakshina Bharat
Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras; and Rashtrabhasha-- Ratna
from Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti, Wardha. It is,
therefore, accepted that the terms of eligibility as specified
in the Advertisement read with Corrigendum have been
fulfilled.
5.3. Similarly, having passed Three Year Degree Course
Examination, 2009 from North Orissa University;
Rashtrabhasha Shastri from Odisha Rashtra Bhasa Parishad,
Puri in the year 2014; and Bachelor of Education in the year
2015 in First Class from Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar
Sabha, Madras, Ms. Chitralekha Mohanta, petitioner No.3,
has rightfully claimed to be eligible for the post of HINDI
TEACHER.
5.4. This Court finds force in the submission of Sri Kunal
Kumar Swain, Advocate that a list of candidates for the
year 2017 when prepared vide the document titled
"PROVISIONAL SELECT, REVISED PROVISIONAL MERIT AND
FINAL REJECT LISTS OF APPLICATIONS OF APPLICANTS APPLIED
FOR THE POSTS OF HINDI (CONTRACTUAL) IN DIFFERENT
SCHOOLS UNDER SSD DEPARTMENT IN MAYURBJHANJ
DISTRICT FOR THE YEAR 2017 [REF.: ADVERTISEMENT
NO.2832/DWO, DT. 03.05.2017]", aforesaid qualifications
of all these three petitioners have been clearly
acknowledged by the concerned authority, who has at the
foot of such appended note as "all applicants are advised to
follow notice No.3088/DWO, date 01/06/2018, which is
also available in www.mayurbhanj.nic.in".
5.5. At this juncture it is noteworthy to understand the purport of
the term "OR". The word 'or' is normally disjunctive and
'and' is normally conjunctive, but when other part of the
same statute or the clear intention of it obligates they are
read as vice versa. See Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vrs.
Tek Chand Bhatia, AIR 1980 SC 360. Reference may also
be had to Indore Development Authority Vrs. Manoharlal,
(2020) 8 SCC 129. It has been observed that if literal
reading of the word produces an unintelligible or absurd
result, 'and' may be read for 'or' and 'or' may be read for
'and'. The word 'or' cannot be read as 'and'. They should
be considered in an ordinary sense. If two different
interpretations are possible, the court will adopt that which
is just, reasonable and sensible. The word 'or' cannot be
read as 'and'. If the precise words used are plain and
unambiguous, they are bound to be construed in their
ordinary sense. The mere fact that the results of a statute
may be unjust does not entitle a court to refuse to give it
effect. If there are two different interpretations of the words
in an Act, the court will adopt that which is just, reasonable
and sensible rather than that which is none of those things.
If the inconvenience is an absurd inconvenience, by reading
an enactment in its ordinary sense, whereas if it is read in a
manner in which it is capable, though not in an ordinary
sense, there would not be any inconvenience at all; there
would be reason why one should not read it according to its
ordinary grammatical meaning. Where the words are plain,
the court would not make any alteration. In Stroud's
Judicial Dictionary, 3rd Edn., Vol. 1, it is stated at p. 135:
"And" has generally a cumulative sense, requiring the
fulfilment of all the conditions that it joins together, and
herein it is the antithesis of "or". Sometimes, however, even
in such a connection, it is, by force of a context, read as
"or". While dealing with the topic 'OR is read as AND, and
vice versa', Stroud says in Vol. 3, at p. 2009:
"You will find it said in some cases that 'or' means 'and';
but 'or' never does mean 'and'. Similarly, in Maxwell on
Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn., pp. 229-30, it has been
accepted that 'to carry out the intention of the legislature, it
is occasionally found necessary to read the conjunctions
'or' and 'and' one for the other."
The word 'or' is normally disjunctive and 'and' is normally
conjunctive, but at times they are read as vice versa.
5.6. The word 'or' is a disjunctive word. It is well established
principle of statutory interpretation that the word 'or' is
normally disjunctive and the word 'and' is normally
conjunctive. Both of them can be read as vice versa, but that
interpretation is adopted only where the intention of the
Legislature is manifest. The word 'or' is normally
disjunctive but at times they are read as vice versa to give
effect to the manifest intention of the Legislature as
disclosed from the context. The reading of 'or' as 'and' is
not to be resorted to, unless some other part of the same
statute or the clear intention of it requires that to be done.
Where provision is clear and unambiguous the word 'or'
cannot be read as 'and' by applying the principle of reading
down. But if the literal reading of the words produces an
unintelligible or absurd result of so modifying the words is
less favourable to the subject provided that the intention of
the Legislature is otherwise quite clear. Conversely if
reading of 'and' and 'or' produces grammatical distortion
and makes no sense of the portion following 'and', 'or'
cannot be read in place of 'and'. The alternatives joined by
'or' need not always be mutually exclusive. The
substitution of conjunctions, however, has been sometimes
made without sufficient reasons, and it has been doubted
whether some of the cases of turning 'or' into 'and' and
vice versa have not gone to the extreme limit of
interpretation. Refer: Competition Commission of India Vrs.
Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 744; Union of
India Vrs. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd., (2011) 7 GSTR 348
(SC) = (2011) 40 VST 1 (SC) = (2011) 4 SCC 635;
Raghunath International Ltd. Vrs. Union of India, (2012)
15 GSTR 400 (All); Peekay Re-rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vrs.
Secretary to Government, (2012) 56 VST 103 (Ker).
5.7. It is also significant to notice the following view expressed
by this Court in the case of Akhila Kumar Naik and Others
Vrs. State of Odisha and Others, W.P.(C) No.33301 of
2020, vide Judgment dated 11.12.2021:
"18. The word "or" is normally disjunctive and 'and' is
normally conjunctive. In Hyderabad Asbestos
Cement Product Vrs. Union of India, 2000 (1) SCC
426 = AIR 2000 SC 314, it has been held that 'or' in
its natural sense denotes an 'alternative' and is not
read as 'substitutive'. In Green Vrs. Premier
Glynrhonwy State Co., (1928) I KB 561, it has been
held that 'or' does not generally mean 'and' and
'and' does not generally mean 'or'. The same view
has also been taken in Nasiruddin v. State Transport
Appellate Tribunal, (1975) 2 SCC 671 = AIR 1976
SC 331 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek
Chand Bhatia, (1980) 1 SCC 158 = AIR 1980 SC 360
and State (Delhi Administration) Vrs. Puran Mal
(1985) 2 SCC 589 = AIR 1985 SC 741. In Mersey
Docks and Harbour Board Vrs. Henderson Bros.,
(1888) 13 AC 595, it has been held that as pointed
out by LORD HALSBURY the reading of 'or' and
'and' is not to be resorted to, "unless some other part
of the same statute or the clear intention of it
requires that to be done". In Union of India & Ors.
Vrs. Rabinder Singh, (2012) 12 SCC 787, the apex
Court held that where provision is clear and
unambiguous the word 'or' cannot be read as 'and'
by applying the principle of reading down."
5.8. Applying the aforesaid interpretation to the case at hand, the
word 'or' used in the Advertisement dated 15.12.2015 read
with Corrigendum dated 31.12.2015 it would be fair to
indicate that the qualifications conjoined with the word "or"
would be read in the disjunctive sense. Otherwise, it would
lead to absurd result.
5.9. This Court in Sampad Samal Vrs. State of Odisha, 2017 (I)
ILR-CUT 262, laid down that:
"The first and primary rule of construction is that the
intention of the Legislature must be found in the words used
by the Legislature itself. If the words used are capable of
one construction only, then it would not be open to the
courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the
ground that such hypothetical construction is more
consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act."
5.10. This Court to reach at such conclusion, referred to Madan
Lal Vrs. Changdeo Sugar Mills, AIR 1962 SC 1543 wherein
it has been laid down that the elementary rule is that words
used in a section must be given their plain grammatical
meaning. It is enunciated in Jugal Kishore Vrs. Raw Cotton
Co Ltd., AIR 1955 SC 376 that the cardinal rule of
construction of statutes is to read the statute literally, that is
by giving to the words used by the Legislature their
ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. If, however,
such a reading leads to absurdity and the words are
susceptible of another meaning, the court may adopt the
same. But if no such alternative construction is possible, the
court must adopt the ordinary rule of literal interpretation.
In Amar Singhji Vrs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1955 SC 504 it
is stated that recourse to rules of construction would be
necessary only when a statute is capable of two
interpretations. Where the language is clear and the
meaning plain, effect must be given to it.
5.11. Bearing in mind such golden rules of construction, it may
not be gainsaid that for the post of HINDI TEACHER, "an
applicant must have passed Bachelor Degree Examination
from a recognised University with Hindi as one of the
elective subject" or "with Rastrabhasha Ratna from
Rastrabhasha Prachar Samiti, Wardha" or "with Shastri
from Odisha Rastra Bhasa Parisad, Puri". As the
candidates herein even though have Bachelor Degree they
did not have Hindi as one of the elective subjects.
Nonetheless, they have "Ratna"/"Shastri" qualification
which has been notified as equivalent to +3/B.A. with Hindi
as elective subject, which has been elaborately discussed
infra.
6. From the counter-affidavit it is noticed that the opposite
parties have taken a ground that the petitioners were not
"graduates". Such fact which weighed in discarding
candidature of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 is revealed from
paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit, which is reproduced
as follows:
"11. That, as would reveal from the first provisional merit
list under Annexure-D, the petitioner No.1 Smruti
Rekha Biswal is not the graduate but she is
possessing the qualification of B.H.Ed. The petitioner
No.2 Binita Prajapati having the academic
qualification for B.H.Ed. but not the graduate. The
petitioner No.3-- Chitralekha Mahanta is also not a
graduate but with a qualification of Shastri. ***"
6.1. The Utkal University through Deputy Registrar (Special
Cell) vide document dated 31.07.2012 has declared as
follows:
"Utkal University
Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar - 751004
Equivalence of Degrees
Sl. Name of the University Degrees of the
No. University
* * *
164. Equivalence was made for Alankar Hindi With +3 Hindi (Pass) of
1st, 2nd, 3rd year of Gurukul Kanderi Utkal University
Viswavidyalaya in +3 degree Hindi
(2) Equivalence was made for Rastrabhasa With +3 Pass and
Ratna and Snatak Elective Hindi only
(3) Equivalence was made for B.H.Ed. of Utkal With B.Ed. of Utkal
University University
* * *
168. Odisha Rastrabasa Parisada, Puri Rastrabasa Sastri with
+3 Hindi Pass
* * *"
6.2. Another Notification dated 28th October, 2011 issued by the
Utkal University notified as follows:
"Notification
No.A.C. Equi/50(A)(P)/50994/2011, dated 28.10.2011
Sl. Name of the University Degree equivalent with
No. Utkal University
* * *
5. Odisha Rastrabasa Parisad, Puri Rastrabasa Sastri with
+3 Hindi Pass
* * *"
6.3. The Government of India, Ministry of Education and Social
Welfare (Department of Education), New Delhi, dated
26.07.1979 recognised Hindi Examination as follows:
"Subject: Recognition of Hindi Examination conducted
by Voluntary Hindi Organisations
Sir,
I am directed to convey the approval of the
Government of India to the extensions of the
present period of recognitions to the following
examinations conducted by the Voluntary
Hindi Organisations for the period shown
against each:
Name of the Name of the Standard of Period upto
Organisation Examination Hindi which
prescribed in recognition
the equivalent granted
Examination
Orissa 1. Vinod SLC Permanent"
Rastrabhasa
Parisad, 2. Praveen Inter
Puri
3. Shastri B.A.
6.4. This Court is fortified with the view expressed in the case
of Smruti Rekha Mishra Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C)
No.41672 of 2021, vide Order dated 06.01.2022 wherein it
has been held as follows:
"8. *** So far the issue of degree of Sastri by Odisha
Rastrabhasa Parishad, Puri is concerned, the same is
no more res-integra. The Orissa Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar while
adjudicating O.A.No.1090 of 2016 was also required
to adjudicate the above noted issue. Vide Order
dated 24th May, 2019 passed in O.A.No.1090 2016
the Orissa Administrative Tribunal has come to a
conclusion that the degree of Sastri from Odisha
Rastrabhasa Parishad, Puri along with Bachelor
Degree and M.A. in Hindi constitutes sufficient
eligibility for being appointed to the post of
Contractual Hindi Teacher.
9. The order dated 24th May, 2019 passed by Orissa
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Bhubaneswar in O.A.No.1090 of 2016 was assailed
by the State Government before this Court in W.P.(C)
No.10616 of 2020. This Court vide order dated 7th
September, 2020 has confirmed the order of the
Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Bhubaneswar.
***
12. In the meanwhile, the State Government challenged
the order dated 7th September 2020 passed in
W.P.(C) No.10616 of 2020 before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India by filing SLP(C) No.195-196
of 2021. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by
order dated 20th January, 2021 disposed of the SLP
thereby the order passed by the Orissa
Administrative Tribunal has been confirmed and
the said order has attained finality."
6.5. In view of aforesaid clear declaration of different competent
authorities supported by the decisions of the Courts, the
stance of the opposite parties that the petitioners are not
"graduates" is fallacious.
6.6. Sri Kunal Kumar Swain, learned counsel for the petitioners
forcefully argued that if the aforesaid equivalence as
declared by the Utkal University and the Government of
India is considered with reference to the qualifications of
the petitioners (Nos. 1 to 3), which has not been disputed or
denied at any point of time by the opposite parties, the
opposite parties have committed mistake in not considering
the marks awarded in respect of such qualification. Sri
Kunal Kumar Swain to drive home his point that the instant
petitioners ought to have been selected in higher order in
the selection list has submitted a comparative charts which
are as follows:
First Select List
Name HSC +2 Ratna/ B.Ed. Category Total
Shastri
Smrutirekha 55.33 62.62 64 71.2 UR 253.15
Biswal (Ratna)
(Petitioner
No.1)
Binita Prajapati 55.63 46.33 72 77.7 UR 251.66
(Petitioner (Ratna)
No.2)
Chitralekha 44.93 49.67 88.14 71.1 UR 253.84
Mohanta (Shastri)
(Petitioner
No.3)
Name HSC +2 Ratna/ B.Ed. Category Total
Shastri
Mamata 42.67 70.31 60.14 79.7 UR 252.82
Manjari Das (Shastri)
(Opposite Party
No.4)
Gajendra 42.53 65.50 58.67 75.8 UR 242.50
Behera (Ratna)
(Opposite Party
No.6)
Mrutyunjaya 60.13 51.78 52.67 78.75 UR 243.33
Behera (Ratna)
(Opposite Party
No.7)
Gitanjali Sa 43.33 64.50 65.14 77 UR 249.97
(Opposite Party (Ratna)
No.8)
Revised Marks of Select List
Name HSC +2 +3 B.Ed. Category Total
Smrutirekha 55.33 62.62 48.71 71.2 UR 237.86
Biswal
(Petitioner
No.1)
Binita Prajapati 55.63 46.33 59.36 77.7 UR 239.02
(Petitioner
No.2)
Chitralekha 44.93 49.67 63.50 71.1 UR 299.20
Mohanta
(Petitioner
No.3)
Name HSC +2 +3 B.Ed. Category Total
Mamata 42.67 70.31 66.62 79.7 UR 259.30
Manjari Das
(Opposite Party
No.4)
Gajendra 42.53 65.50 61.83 75.8 UR 245.66
Behera
(Opposite Party
No.6)
Mrutyunjaya 60.13 51.78 50.00 78.75 UR 240.66
Behera
(Opposite Party
No.7)
Gitanjali Sa 43.33 64.50 55.44 77 UR 240.27
(Opposite Party
No.8)
6.7. Aforesaid tables lead to demonstrate that the petitioner
Nos.1 to 3 have secured more marks than the opposite party
Nos.4, 6, 7 and 8. Minute reading of Notification dated
28.10.2011 along with document dated 31.07.2012 issued
by the Utkal University and Communication dated
26.07.1979 of the Government of India suggests that
whereas the qualification "Shastri" is notified as equivalent
to B.A./"+3 Hindi Pass", "Ratna" is considered equivalent
to "+3 Hindi Pass". Since the petitioner Nos.1 to 3, though
passed +3/B.A. without Hindi as one of the elective subjects
from North Odisha University, they having qualified
"Shastri"/"Ratna", the marks awarded in said subject ought
to have been taken as Bachelor Degree with elective
subject-- "Hindi". This Court accepts the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the first select list, as
published by the opposite parties, was correctly drawn and
the revised select list, excluding the marks of relevant
subject related to Hindi qualification as specified in the
Resolution dated 27.10.2014 and the Advertisement dated
15.12.2015 read with Corrigendum dated 31.12.2015, is
unjust and improper.
7. The submission of the learned Additional Standing Counsel
that "possession of education qualification as has been
referred by the petitioners is of no consequence or
relevance" is only to be rejected in view of reasons ascribed
to above. The present case relates to selection for the post of
HINDI TEACHER. From the Resolution dated 27th October,
2014 it is ex facie clear that "the Government after careful
consideration of the matter have decided to prescribe the
qualification of Hindi Teachers" in the order of preference
"for providing quality and better education to the students".
If the opposite parties could ascertain that the petitioners in
graduation stage did not have "Hindi" as one of the elective
subjects, in the alternative they could have taken the
equivalent qualification into consideration. Whereas it is
noticed that the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 have no Bachelor
Degree with Hindi as one of the elective subjects, they have
equivalent qualification such as Ratna or Shastri from the
Institutions as stated in the said Resolution dated
27.10.2014. In the document titled "PROVISIONAL SELECT,
REVISED PROVISIONAL MERIT AND FINAL REJECT LISTS OF
APPLICATIONS OF APPLICANTS APPLIED FOR THE POSTS OF
HINDI (CONTRACTUAL) IN DIFFERENT SCHOOLS UNDER SSD
DEPARTMENT IN MAYURBJHANJ DISTRICT FOR THE YEAR
2017 [REF.: ADVERTISEMENT NO.2832/DWO, DT.
03.05.2017]", with note "all applicants are advised to
follow notice No.3088/DWO, date 01/06/2018, which is
also available in www.mayurbhanj.nic.in" as appended at
the foot, indicates that the opposite parties have
acknowledged Ms. Smrutirekha Biswal, petitioner No.1,
having passed +3 examination from Shri Jagannath Sanskrit
Vishvavidyalaya, Puri; Ms. Binita Prajapati, petitioner
No.2, passed +3 from North Odisha University; and Ms.
Chitralekha Mohanta, petitioner No.3, passed +3 from
North Odisha University. They all also have alternative
qualifications Ratna/Shastri with B.Ed. which could be
treated as B.A. with Hindi as elective subject in terms of
declarations made by the Utkal University and Government
of India.
7.1. In the Corrigendum dated 31.12.2015 to the Advertisement
dated 15.12.2015 laid down the criteria for eligibility for the
post of Hindi Teacher inter alia that the candidate must
have passed Bachelor Degree Examination from a
recognised University with Hindi as one of the elective
subjects or with Rastrabhasha Ratna from Rastrabhasha
Prachar Samiti, Wardha or with Shastri from Odisha Rastra
Bhasa Parisad, Puri. When the candidates, the petitioners
herein, did not have Hindi as elective subject in Bachelor
Degree Examination, Ratna/Shastri which is treated to be
equivalent to Bachelor Degree, as discussed above, the
same ought to have been taken into consideration by the
opposite parties. Reading the eligibility criteria as
mentioned in the Advertisement read with Corrigendum
thereto in any other manner would result in absurdity. It is,
thus, found that the petitioners have requisite qualifications
as specified in the Advertisement dated 15.12.2015 read
with Corrigendum dated 31.12.2015. Therefore, the
opposite parties have fallen in error in discarding the marks
of such qualifications while computing the total marks.
8. Further analysis of fact as stated by the petitioner in the
petition reveals that a notice dated 9292/DWO, dated
28.10.2016 was issued by the Collector & District
Magistrate, Mayurbhanj to the following effect:
"*** The applicants are instructed to go through the lists
and submit their objections, if any or submit required
documents as mentioned in the remark column of
'Provisional Valid List' to the office of the District Welfare
Officer, Mayurbhanj on or before 11.11.2016 by 5.00 pm in
the office hour.
The objections received beyond the date line shall not be
entertained."
8.1. It has been averred by the petitioner that after lapse of
objection period as stipulated in the notice above, a notice
was published on 22.11.2016 wherein the selected
candidates were called upon to attend for verification of
original certificates scheduled to be held on 29.11.2016 in
the District Welfare Office, Mayurbhanj. On the said date
individual notice was issued to the concerned applicant to
attend for verification of documents/original certificates and
also counselling for the post of Hindi Teacher. It is asserted
by the petitioners that on 29.11.2016 after verification,
agreement was also executed between the petitioners and
the authorities specifying posting at the notified school as
Hindi Teacher. It is, therefore, submitted by the counsel for
the petitioners that the Selection Committee is powerless to
review its own decision.
8.2. Against such a stand, the opposite parties in the counter
save and except stating that the Selection Committee
constituted as per Rule 5 of the Odisha Subordinate Tribal
Welfare Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1993, forwarded list of candidates arranged in order
of merit for appointment by direct recruitment to the
appointing authority in terms of Rule 6 thereof, the
assertion of fact of the petitioners has not been objected to.
Per contra, the learned Additional Standing Counsel
submitted that the Selection Committee having
"revised/renewed" selected "best efficient candidates for the
post of Hindi Teacher in consonance with the guideline
provided in Resolution dated 27.10.2014". It is contended
by the opposite parties that it was well within the
knowledge of the petitioners that in view of Rule 6(2) of the
aforesaid Rules, "For computation of marks, the total marks
and the marks obtained at different examinations are to be
added up and percentage calculated. The names of the
candidates shall be arranged according to the percentage of
marks secured. No marks shall be added for any extra or
additional qualification. Honours at Degree level and 4th
optional at +2 level will be treated as normal qualification,
but not as additional qualification".
8.3. Perusal of aforesaid Rules it is noticed that no power is
vested with the Selection Committee to "revise/renew" the
select list. Once verification of documents is complete and
agreement is executed by disclosing the placement, i.e.,
school at which the candidate is posted, the selection
process got concluded and the Selection Committee
becomes functus officio so as to inhere the power to
revise/review/renew. Scrutiny of Rule 6(2) of said Rules
indicates that no marks shall be added for any extra or
additional qualification. In the instant case, the petitioners
have not asked to add any extra or additional qualification,
but wanted their qualification as Ratna/Shastri which is
declared equivalent to graduation with Hindi as elective
subject to be considered and added to the total marks while
computing for the purpose of preparation of select list. The
petitioners are right in claiming that the provisional select
list which was initially prepared by adding said marks was
just and proper, particularly so when in the neighbouring
district in Keonjhar such a course has been followed for
selecting candidates for the post of HINDI TEACHER.
8.4. In the counter it has been affirmed that Rule 7(2)(c) of the
Odisha Subordinate Tribal Welfare Education (Recruitment
and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1993 provided as
follows:
"For Hindi Teacher/Mistress a candidate must be a
graduate with Hindi as an optional subject or having
minimum qualification of Matric with Kovid or equivalent
with Odia up to High School Certificate Examination."
Unimpeachable document, like High School Certificate
Examination issued by the Board of Secondary Education,
Odisha in favour of the petitioner(s), shows that all the
petitioners have passed Matric with Odia as First Language
subject. So far as "Kovid" qualification is concerned, the
petitioners have higher qualification, like "Ratna"/"Shastri"
which is declared equivalent to B.A./"+3 Hindi Pass". It
may be stated that after qualifying "Kovid" test, one is
eligible to appear in the Ratna Examination. Thus, it is
pertinent to refer to Resolution dated 27th October, 2014
issued by the Government of Odisha in School and Mass
Education wherein the requisite qualification has been
specified as Ratna/Shastri. In such view of the matter, the
contention of the opposite parties that the petitioners have
not satisfied eligibility criteria as specified in the
Advertisement dated 15.12.2015 read with Corrigendum
dated 31.12.2015 is misconceived.
8.5. It is observed by this Court that after objection period has
been lapsed, and placement in particular school was given
by executing agreement, it is not open for the Selection
Committee to cancel such select list and revise the list after
around 6 months. Such an approach is not beyond reproach.
9. Another pertinent point which is addressed by the learned
counsel for the petitioners is that one of the neighbouring
districts, namely Keonjhar adopted the procedure by taking
into consideration the marks secured by the candidates in
HSC, +2 and B.A. with Hindi or Ratna, Shastri and Snataka
or B.Ed. in the context of selection of Hindi Teachers. This
Court would wish to observe that in the same State, two
districts could not have different set of procedure in
selection for the post of HINDI TEACHER.
9.1. The following observation of this Court in Smruti Rekha
Mishra Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.41672 of 2021,
vide Order dated 06.01.2022, is relevant:
"21. Law is fairly well settled that in Service
Jurisprudence, if a similar benefit is given to an
employee, such benefit should be extended to all
similarly situated employees without any
discrimination. The authorities are required to act
with all fairness as fair play is an integral part of all
administrative decision making process. In K.I.
Shephard and others Vrs. Union of India, reported in
AIR 1988 S.C. 686 it has been held by the Supreme
Court of India as follows:
"15. Fair play is a part of the public policy and is a
guarantee for justice to citizens. In our system
of Rule of Law every social agency conferred
with power is required to act fairly so that
social action would be just and there would be
furtherance of the well-being of citizens. The
rules of natural justice have developed with the
growth of civilisation and the content thereof is
often considered as a proper measure of the
level of civilisation and Rule of Law prevailing
in the community. Man within the social frame
has struggled for centuries to bring into the
community the concept of fairness and it has
taken scores of years for the rules of natural
justice to conceptually enter into the field of
social activities. We do not think in the facts of
the case there is any justification to hold that
rules of natural justice have been ousted by
necessary implication on account of the time
frame. On the other hand we are of the view
that the time limited by statute provides scope
for an opportunity to be extended to the
intended excluded employees before the
scheme is finalised so that a hearing
commensurate to the situation is afforded
before a section of the employees is thrown out
of employment."
19. The writ petitions and the appeals must
succeed. We set aside the impugned judgments
of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the
Kerala High Court and direct that each of the
three transferee banks should take over the
excluded employees on the same terms and
conditions of employment under the respective
banking companies prior to amalgamation.
The employees would be entitled to the benefit
of continuity of service for all purposes
including salary and perks throughout the
period. We leave it open to the transferee
banks to take such action as they consider
proper against these employees in accordance
with law. Some of the excluded employees have
not come to Court. There is no justification to
penalise them for not having litigated. They too
shall be entitled to the same benefits as the
petitioners. Ordinarily the successful parties
should have been entitled to costs but in view
of the fact that they are going back to
employment, we do not propose to make orders
of costs against their employers. We hope and
trust that the transferee banks would look at
the matter with an open mind and would keep
themselves alive to the human problem
involved in it."
22. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the matter of Maharaj Krishna Bhatta and another
Vrs. State of J.K. and others, reported in (2008) 9
SCC 24 has been relied upon by the learned counsel
for the Petitioner in support of his argument that the
Opposite Parties are bound to treat similarly placed
persons in an identical manner without resorting to
discrimination and arbitrariness. The relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment has been quoted
here in below:
"16. In our considered opinion, in the light of the
facts and circumstances, the Government
ought to have accepted and respected the
decision of the learned Single Judge without
filing intra-Court appeal. No distinguishing
feature had been brought to the notice of the
Division Bench, nor the Division Bench set
aside the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge holding or observing that
though Abdul Rashid Rather was granted the
benefit and the learned Single Judge ordered
extension of those benefits to the writ
petitioners, they were not entitled because the
case of Abdul Rashid Rather was different.
Even before us, nothing special or
extraordinary fact or circumstance was shown
to distinguish the case of Abdul Rashid Rather
and of the present appellants. In our opinion,
therefore, the learned Single Judge was wholly
justified in allowing the writ petition and the
Division Bench ought not to have interfered
with the said decision.
17. It was no doubt contended by the learned
counsel for the respondent-State that Article 14
or 16 of the Constitution cannot be invoked
and pressed in service to perpetuate illegality.
It was submitted that if one illegal action is
taken, a person whose case is similar, cannot
invoke Article 14 or 16 and demand similar
relief illegally or against a statute. There can
be no two opinions about the legal proposition
as submitted by the learned counsel for the
State. But in the case on hand, in our opinion,
there was no illegality on the part of the
learned Single Judge in allowing Writ petition
No. 519 of 1997 instituted by Abdul Rashid
Rather and in issuing necessary directions.
Since the action was legal and in consonance
with law, the Division Bench confirmed it and
this Court did not think it proper to interfere
with the said order and dismissed Special
Leave Petition. To us, in the circumstances, the
learned Single Judge was wholly right and
fully justified in following the judgment and
order in Writ Petition No. 519 of 1987 in the
case of present writ petitioners also. In
fairness and in view of the fact that the
decision in Abdul Rashid Rather had attained
finality, the State Authorities ought to have
gracefully accepted the decision by granting
similar benefits to present writ petitioners. It,
however, challenged the order passed by the
Single Judge. The Division Bench of the High
Court ought to have dismissed Letters Patent
Appeal by affirming the order of the Single
Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal, however,
was allowed by the Division Bench and the
judgment and order of the learned Single
Judge was set aside. In our considered view,
the order passed by the learned Single Judge
was legal, proper and in furtherance of justice,
equity and fairness in action. The said order,
therefore, deserves to be restored."
10. It is deserved for consideration the fact that there has been
dearth of Hindi qualified persons. Vide Resolution dated
27.10.2014 it has been admitted by the Government.
Relevant portion of said Resolution reads as follows:
"In spite of the above common qualification, it is noticed
that required numbers of candidates having the above
qualification in Hindi are not available in the State as a
result large numbers of posts of Hindi Teachers are lying
vacant in such institutions."
Under the above premise, the petitioners, having requisite
qualification as specified in said Resolution, even though in
the first selection list their names found place, should not
have been ignored, more so when testimonials were verified
and agreements were executed indicating names of the
schools to which they were posted, which fact as pleaded in
the writ petition has not been denied by the opposite parties.
Conclusion:
11. In view of the factual scenario unfolded above and for the
discussions made with reasons assigned in the foregoing
paragraphs, in the result, it is held that the opposite parties
have not considered the case of the petitioners (Nos. 1 to 3)
in proper perspective and therefore, the Revised Provisional
Merit List of Applicants for the Post of Hindi Teachers
(Contractual) in Educational Complexes and Schools under
SSD Department in Mayurbhanj, dated 17th May, 2017 vide
Annexure-11 is set aside.
12. As a consequence, the petitioners (Nos.1 to 3) are eligible to
be considered for engagement in the post of HINDI TEACHER
(Contractual) in terms of Advertisement dated 15th
December, 2015 read with Corrigendum dated 31st
December, 2015.
13. The opposite parties are directed to take into consideration
the candidature of the instant petitioners, consider their case
for engagement as HINDI TEACHER (CONTRACTUAL) by re-
drawing the select list and extend them all the benefits in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of three months from the date of
service of copy of this judgment.
14. In fine, the writ petition is allowed qua the petitioner Nos.1
to 3, namely Ms. Smrutirekha Biswal, Ms. Binita Prajapati
and Ms. Chitralekha Mohanta; and dismissed qua the
petitioner No.4-Ms. Gangotri Ghosh, as not pressed; but in
the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.
(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
JUDGE
Laxmikant
