Orissa High Court
Raibaria Raita vs State Of Odisha & Others on 8 January, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.33251 of 2024
Raibaria Raita
.... Petitioner
Mr. J.R. Khuntia, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others
.... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.P. Das, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 08.01.2025
01. 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:-
"(A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be
issued commanding the opposite parties to regularize the
services of the petitioner as Level-V Assistant Teacher from
the date he completed eight years of service in terms of the
notification dtd.22.12.2016 issued by the Government of
Odisha in School and Mass Education Department under
Annexure:3 keeping in view the decision of this Hon'ble
Court rendered in the case of Balabhadra Majhi Vs.
State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.15345 of 2022
disposed of on 11.11.2022) read with the decision
rendered in the case of Pramoda Mohanty Vs. State of
Odisha and Others (W.P.(C) No.10640 of 2022 disposed
of on 18.11.2022), which has been upheld by the Division
Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of State of Odisha
and Others Vs. Pramoda Mohanty (W.A. No.1912 of
2023 disposed of on 26.04.2024) and the recent decision
of this Hon'ble Court rendered in the case of Pravasini
Sabar Vrs. State of Odisha and Others (W.P.(C) No.29499
// 2 //
of 2024 disposed of on 04.12.2024) with all consequential
service and financial benefits, within a time to be
stipulated by this Hon'ble Court".
4. It is contended that even though Petitioner is
continuing as Gana Sikshyaka since the year 2008, but
in terms of the notification issued by the Government in
the School & Mass Education Department on 22.12.2016
under Annexure-3, 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
// 3 //
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
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. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel 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.
// 4 //
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
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 stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
