Orissa High Court
Prajnya Parimita Barik vs State Of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. ... on 12 February, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 28242 of 2013
Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India.
---------------
Prajnya Parimita Barik ...... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : M/s. Chandrakanta Nayak &
R.K. Nayak, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
_________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
th
12 February, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner applied for engagement as
Sikshya Sahayak pursuant to the advertisement issued for the
year 2014-15. She being a physical disabled candidate has
graduation qualification with B.Ed. Further, she also has
OTET-I qualification. A list of trained eligible candidates was
published by OPEPA, wherein the petitioner's name was at
serial No.191. The said list was of the trained candidates.
However, the District Project Coordinator (DPC), Balasore
struck out her name from the said list and published her name
in the category of untrained CT candidates at serial No. 51. The
petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.52 of 2015
challenging such decision, but by judgment dated 16.02.2016,
this Court dismissed the writ application by holding that the
policy decision of the Government cannot be interfered with.
The petitioner challenged such dismissal of the writ application
before the Division Bench in W.A. No. 101 of 2016. By order
dated 07.02.2017, the writ appeal was disposed of granting
liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority
with her grievance. The petitioner submitted a representation,
which came to be rejected by the District Project Coordinator
by his order dated 20.05.2017. Said order is impugned in the
present writ application. The petitioner contends that being a
physically disabled candidate and having OTET-I qualification
with B.Ed, she is eligible to be appointed as a trained
candidate.
2. The stand of the State as reflected in the counter
affidavit is that though the petitioner has acquired graduation
with B.Ed. qualification and passed OTET in paper-1, she
cannot apply under CT category post. As per clarification
issued by the Government in Department of School and Mass
Education vide letter dated 29.08.2023, a candidate passing
OTET-I cannot apply under B.Ed. category and a candidate
passing OTET-II cannot apply under CT category. It is further
stated that the engagement process for the year 2014-15 has
already been completed. Her earlier approach to this Court has
met with failure. Therefore, the question of considering her as a
handicapped person also does not arise.
3. Heard Mr. Chandrakanta Nayak, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State.
4. Mr. Nayak, would argue that admittedly the
petitioner is a graduate with B.Ed. qualification and has passed
OTET-I. Further, she being a disabled candidate having hearing
impairment can be considered for CT category post. The DPC
has not considered this aspect while rejecting the
representation of the petitioner basing on the clarification dated
29.08.2013 of the Government.
5. Per contra, Mr. Pattnaik would argue that as per the
clarification issued by the Government, a candidate passing
OTET-1 cannot apply under B.Ed. category even though she
has B.Sc. qualification. Similarly, candidate passing OTET-II
cannot apply under CT category. Admittedly, the petitioner
having passed OTET-I cannot apply under CT category and
therefore, was rightly treated as untrained. Mr. Pattnaik further
argues that the petitioner's case was earlier rejected on merits
by this Court in the earlier writ application filed by her and
therefore, she cannot be allowed to re-agitate the issue.
6. It is true that the petitioner had earlier approached
this Court in W.P.(C) No. 52 of 2015, which was dismissed on
merits. She preferred intra Court appeal being W.A. No. 101 of
2016, wherein she was permitted to withdraw the appeal with
liberty to approach the appropriate authority. Therefore,
applying the doctrine of merger, it can be said that the previous
order passed by the Single Judge would not stand as res-
judicata. The order passed by the appropriate authority, DPC is
to be considered for its correctness or otherwise.
7. Reading of the impugned order reveals that reference
has been made to the clarification dated 29.08.2013 of the
Government and the fact that the petitioner though qualified
OTET-I, does not have CT qualification for the post meant for
CT category. Therefore, she was treated as untrained
candidate. Further, as she had not qualified OTET-II, she could
not also be considered under B.Ed. category post.
8. It appears that by notification dated 11.09.2014 of
the Government, guidelines were issued for engagement of
Sikshya Sahayaks. The advertisement under Clause No.7
provided that OTET-1 passed untrained SC, ST and PH
candidates can apply for CT posts. It is not disputed that the
petitioner was a physically handicapped candidate in view of
the certificate issued by the Medical Board, Balasore certifying
her disability as 45 % hearing impaired. The list of eligible
candidates originally published by the OPEPA, wherein the
name of the petitioner is at serial No. 191, mentions her as a
hearing impaired candidate. Though Clause-7 was referred to
in the previous judgment passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge,
yet the fact that the petitioner is a PH candidate, was not
specifically considered for grant of relaxation. The DPC while
passing the impugned order has also not considered the
provision of relaxation for PH candidates. In the counter
affidavit it has simply been stated that in view of the rejection
of the earlier writ application, the question of considering the
petitioner's case as handicapped person does not arise. After
going through the relevant clause, this Court is of the view that
there being a specific provision for relaxation meant for
physically handicapped candidates specifically to the effect that
such candidates having OTET-I qualification can also apply for
CT category post, the same ought to have been considered by
the DPC.
9. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is
persuaded to hold that the impugned order having been based
only clarification dated 29.08.2013 but not having considered
the effect of clause-7 of the advertisement (general instructions
for candidates) cannot be said to have properly decided the
representation of the petitioner.
10. The writ application is therefore, disposed of by
setting aside the impugned order dated 20.05.2017 and by
remitting the matter to the DPC Balasore to consider the
grievance of the petitioner afresh by taking into account clause-
7 of the 'General Instructions to the Candidates' as per the
advertisement. It is needless to mention that if the petitioner is
held for consideration as per the aforesaid clause, necessary
orders shall be passed in her favour without any further delay
thereafter.
.................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 12th February, 2025/ A.K. Rana, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Feb-2025 11:29:58
