State Of Odisha And Others vs Suptimayee Acharya
2023 Latest Caselaw 13347 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               W.A. No. 90 of 2023

State of Odisha and others           .....                                  Appellants
                                                               Mr. R.N. Mishra, AGA
                                     Vs.
Suptimayee Acharya                   .....                                 Respondent


            CORAM:
               ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
               MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

                                               ORDER

30.10.2023

Order No. I.A. No. 211 of 2023

01. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. This application has been filed for condonation of delay of 49 days in filing the writ appeal.

3. Considering the grounds stated in the application itself, the delay in filing of the writ appeal is condoned.

4. The I.A. stands disposed of.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

(M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE

02. W.A. No. 90 of 2023 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-appellants.

3. This appeal has been filed by the State functionaries assailing the judgment dated 01.11.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 20808 of 2019, by

which, learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition directed the State authorities to consider the case of the respondent for her appointment as TGT against the available vacancies subject to production of the certificate of equivalence by her in terms of the advertisement. It was also observed in the said order that if the respondent submits such certificate within a period of four weeks, necessary order for her appointment shall be issued by the authorities within a further period of four weeks.

4. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the learned Single Judge has taken note of the same in paragraph-5 of the judgment by indicating therein that the District Education Officer has filed a reply to the rejoinder stating that as per Clause-5, the candidate is required to produce authenticated proof of equivalence from Board/University of Odisha, affiliation of the institution by a recognized university and recognition of such training course and institute by NCTE. The respondent passed the B.Ed. degree from M.A.M. College of Education, Andhra Pradesh, which mentioned the degree as B.EL.Ed. and not B.Ed. Though the respondent submitted the corrected certificate but the same was not within the stipulated time and hence, her candidature was not considered. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that since the corrected certificate was submitted by the respondent later on, therefore, her application was defective one and as such, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is erroneous one and needs interference by this Court.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and after going through the records, it appears that admittedly the respondent applied for the post advertised and also produced certain documents. She also produced the certificate justifying that she acquires required

qualification. Though the respondent had passed the B.Ed examination, since it was wrongly mentioned as B.El.Ed, subsequently the respondent submitted the corrected certificate, which was duly acknowledged by the authorities. Therefore, now the State cannot wriggle out from the same by taking a stand that the respondent had not produced the corrected certificate at the time of submission of the application. More so, learned Single Judge has directed the authorities to consider the case of the respondent for her appointment as TGT against the available vacancies subject to production of the certificate of equivalence by her in terms of the advertisement. Therefore, once the respondent produces the certificate of equivalence in terms of the agreement, in that case, she cannot be denied the benefit.

6. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any error apparent on the face of it so as to interfere with the same. Thus, the writ appeal merits no consideration and the same stands dismissed.

                                                                                 (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
                                                                               ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE


                                                                                    (M.S. RAMAN)
                Arun                                                                  JUDGE




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA

Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 31-Oct-2023 13:26:45