Orissa High Court
Ananta Narayan Behera vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 29 April, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No. 25369 of 2024
(An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India)
Ananta Narayan Behera ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
_____________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. K.K.Jena, Advocate,
For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik,
Additional Government Advocate for
the State.
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
29th April, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner has filed this writ application with
the following prayer;
"It is, therefore, prayed that this
Hon'ble Court would graciously be
pleased to admit the writ petition after
hearing the parties allow the same
thereby directing the opp.party no.2 to
consider the legitimate grievance as per
instruction vide letter no.964 dated
30.10.2003 issued by Commissioner
cum Secretary, S&ME Department,
Govt.of Odisha under Annexure-2 and
consequential resolution of Government
of Odisha, Department of School and
Mass Education dated 31.05.2006
under Annexure-3 engaging the
petitioner as Sikshya Sahayak in
Phiringia Block under District of
Kandhamal in the interest of justice
and equity.
And issue any other
writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) be passed
as this Hon'ble Court deem just fit and
proper.
And for this act of kindness this
petitioner as in duty bound shall ever
pray."
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the
petitioner was selected as Sikhya Sahayak pursuant to
advertisement dated 14.10.2006. He being an SC
untrained physically handicapped candidate, applied for
such position in Phiringia block under Kandhamal
district. It is stated that 39 vacancies were notified for
the district. The petitioner was placed at SL. No. 39 of
the merit list. It is his grievance that though 54
candidates were appointed, the petitioner, despite being
placed at Sl. No. 39, was not granted appointment. As
such, he preferred writ application before this Court
being W.P.(C). No. 7218 of 2009, which was disposed of
on 13.05.2009 granting him liberty to submit a
representation before the Collector, Kandhamal
highlighting his grievances. Pursuant to such order, the
petitioner submitted a representation but the same
came to be rejected by order dated 23.09.2009 on the
ground that the cut-off mark under SC male category is
68 and the petitioner having secured 67.21 marks is not
eligible to be selected. The petitioner challenged the
order of the Collector before this Court again in W.P.(C).
No. 10141 of 2019. In the said writ application a specific
stand was taken that as per instructions of the
Government vide letter dated 30.10.2003, untrained SC
candidates can be appointed against vacant posts meant
for SC and ST candidates. This Court, by order dated
17.06.2019 permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ
application with liberty to approach the appropriate
forum ventilating his grievance. As such, the petitioner
again approached the Collector, Kandhamal as well as
the State Project Director, OSEPA by submitting
representations on 09.12.2019. No action being taken
on the representations, the petitioner again submitted a
representation on 08.02.2021. A revised merit list was
prepared on 27.10.2021 but the name of the petitioner
did not find place. It is stated that all other districts
except Kandhamal have acted as per the
instruction/clarification issued by the Government on
13.10.2003. Under such circumstances, the petitioner
again submitted representation to the Commissioner-
cum-Secretary, School and Mass Education Department
on 27.03.2023. Since no action was taken, he has
approached this Court with the prayer as quoted above.
3. Heard Mr. K.K.Jena, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. S.Behera, learned AGA for the State.
4. Mr. Jena would argue that as per letter dated
30.10.2003 of the Government, it was clarified that in
case SC and ST trained candidates are not available,
untrained candidates can be appointed. Following this
clarification, almost all districts of the State, except
Kandhamal, have given engagement to untrained
Sikhya Sahayaks belonging to the SC and ST category.
The subsequent clarification issued by the Director,
Elementary Education on 19.12.2006, relied upon by
the authorities in case of the petitioner, does not hold
good in view of the fact that the same was issued by the
Director.
5. Mr. Behera, learned State counsel refers to the letter
dated 19.12.2006 of the Director, Elementary
Education, copy enclosed as Annexure-7 wherein it was
clearly stated that engagement of SC and ST candidates
against UR category is in violation to the existing norms.
The petitioner's case was not considered because he did
not have training qualification.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on
going through the letter dated 30.10.2003 of the
Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government in School
and Mass Education Department, it is clear that the
Government clarified that in case SC and ST trained
candidates are not available, untrained candidates can
be appointed. In so far as the letter dated 19.12.2006
(Annexure-7) is concerned, the same was issued by the
Director, Elementary Education and State Project
Director, OPEPA and therefore, cannot override or
supersede the letter dated 13.10.2003 of the
Government. Nevertheless, in the said letter also, it has
been clarified as under 'therefore, ST/SC untrained
candidates can only be engaged against the posts
earmarked for ST/SC category provided that required
no. of trained ST/SC applicants are not available in the
block unit area'. As such, even the letter dated
19.12.2006 does not appear to be contrary to the
clarification issued by the Government on 30.10.2003,
at least in principle. That apart, materials have been
placed before this Court to show that in other districts,
such as Malkangiri, appointments have been made in
line with the clarification of the Government issued on
30.10.2003. There is no reason as to why the same shall
not be followed in the district of Kandhamal as
otherwise, it would amount to discrimination. It is
needless to mention that a uniform principle has to be
adopted by the Government in all districts.
7. The position that emerges from the above discussion
is that even untrained ST/SC candidates can be
engaged against SC/ST posts meant for trained qualified
candidates provided such candidates are not available.
8. In such view of the matter, the writ application is
disposed of directing the Collector, Kandhamal to
consider the case of the petitioner for his engagement as
Sikhaya Sahayak (or in any other equivalent post ) in
Phiringa Block against available vacancy in SC category
provided no trained candidates are available and subject
to such other conditions that may be imposed in
accordance with law. Necessary orders in this regard
shall be passed within two months from the date of
production of the certified copy of this order by the
petitioner. It is needless to mention that if no trained
candidates are available, the petitioner, if found to be
otherwise suitable, shall be given engagement.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Deepak
