Orissa High Court
Prabhati Dash vs State Of Odisha & Others on 6 November, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) Nos.5973, 5974, 5975, 5976, 5977, 5979 &
5981 of 2021
W.P.(C) No.5973 of 2021
Prabhati Dash
.... Petitioner
Mr. M.R. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate along with
Ms. S. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others
.... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 06.11.2024
06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter
alia with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that, this Hon'ble
Court be graciously pleased to admit this case, call for the
records and, after hearing both the parties, this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature
of mandamus or any other appropriate writs by directing
the Opposite Parties to regularize the Petitioner (a 'Gana
Sikshyaka') as Elementary Level-V-Teacher in terms of
Government Resolution under Annexure-3, Dated
25.07.2016;
4. It is contended that even though Petitioner is
continuing as Gana Sikshyaka since the year 2011, but
in terms of the notification issued by the Government in
// 2 //
the School & Mass Education Department on 25.07.2016
under Annexure-3 and 22.12.2016 under Annexure-B/4,
Petitioner is not being regularized on the ground that
Petitioner has not passed the OTET Examination.
4.1. It is contended that as provided under Para-2(b) of
notification dtd.22.12.2016, if a Gana Sikshyak does not
pass the OTET by 31.03.2019, he will only be deprived
from getting further increment after 31.03.2019. But
there is no bar for regularization of such Gana Sikshyak
who does not have the required OTET qualification.
4.2. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned
counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of this
Court passed on 11.11.2022 in the case of Balabhadra
Majhi vs. State of Odisha and Others. This Court in
Para-19 of the judgment has held as follows:-
"19. Taking into consideration the factual and legal
aspects, as delineated above, this Court is of the
considered view that the opposite parties cannot deny the
benefit of regularization of service to the petitioner as
Level-V Asst. Teacher, as the petitioner has got requisite
academic qualification and has also acquired training
qualification and otherwise also satisfies the eligibility
criteria for regularization. Therefore, for non-acquisition of
OTET qualification, he cannot be denied the benefit of
regularization. If the petitioner has not acquired the OTET
qualification by 31th March 2019, he may not be entitled
to incremental benefit, but that ipso facto cannot deny the
benefit of regularization to him. Accordingly, this Court
directs the opposite parties to regularize the service of the
petitioner as Level-V Asst. Teacher on completion of eight
years as Gana Sikhyaka, as per the notification dated
22.12.2016. As he has already retired from service, he
should be extended such benefit notionally from the date
of completion of eight years as Gana Sikhyaka by
// 3 //
regularizing his service as Level-V Asst. Teacher. Since the
petitioner has already retired, his pension be revised and
he should be granted pensionary benefits in the revised
scale of pay admissible to him by fixing the same
notionally, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within
a period of three months from the date of communication of
this judgment".
5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate
for the State on the other hand contended that the
decision passed in the case of Balabhadra Majhi is
under challenge in W.A. No.1752 of 2023.
5.1. It is also contended that since Petitioner has not
passed the OTET as on date, Petitioner is not eligible to
get the benefit of regularization.
6. To the stand taken by learned Addl. Government
Advocate, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner
contended that even though the order passed in the case
of Balabhadra Majhi was under challenge in the Writ
Appeal, but in the meantime it has been disposed of vide
order dtd.26.04.2024 and only the direction issued so far
as it relates to grant of pension under OCS (Pension)
Rules, 1992 has been interfered with.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and considering the submissions made and
placing reliance on the notification issued by the
Government on 22.12.2016, it is the view of this Court
that in absence of having the required OTET qualification,
there is no bar on the part of the Opposite Parties to
// 4 //
regularize the services of the Petitioner as Elementary
Cadre Teachers, save and except with the condition that
he will not get any increment beyond 31.03.2019.
7.1. Therefore, this Court while disposing the Writ
Petition directs the Opposite Party No.3 to regularize the
services of the Petitioner, but with the condition that he
will not get any increment beyond 31.03.2019. The entire
exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3)
months from the date of receipt of this order.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stand disposed of.
9. Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected
case records.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
