Orissa High Court
Manoj Kumar Martha & vs Odisha Staff Selection on 31 January, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) Nos.3246 & 3257 of 2025
W.P.(C) No.3246 of 2025
Manoj Kumar Martha &
.... Petitioners
Others
Mr. K. K. Swain, Advocate
-versus-
Odisha Staff Selection
Commission, BBSR & .... Opposite Parties
Others
Mr. S. Das, ASC
Mr.S.N. Pattnaik, Adv. for Commission
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
31.01.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the
Petitioners inter alia with the following prayer:-
"Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the
writ petition may be allowed;
And
(A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued
commanding the opposite parties to accept the online / offline
application of the petitioners for the posts of TGT Arts, TGT
Science (PCM) and TGT Science (CBZ) pursuant to the
Advertisement No.4231/OSSC dated 22.10.2024 issued by the
// 2 //
Odisha Staff Selection Commission, Bhubaneswar under
Annexure:1 as the last date for submission of online application
has been extended to 08.02.2025 as per Annexure:6 and
thereafter they may be allowed to appear in the selection test
notwithstanding publication of their result in final year B.Ed.
Examination, within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble
Court;
(B) And any other order orders direction / directions may be
issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioners;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound
shall remain ever pray".
4. It is not disputed by the Petitioners that both of them
though have appeared the B.Ed. examination through IGNOU,
but their result has not been published as yet and accordingly
they have been debarred from making the application in terms
of the advertisement issued by the Commission on 22.10.2024
under Annexure-1.
4.1. It is contended that since the Petitioners have already
taken the B.Ed. examination through IGNOU in the month of
December and the result is going to be published shortly, they
should be allowed to participate the selection process.
4.2. In support of his submission, learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner relied on the earlier resolution issued by the
Government in the School & Mass Education Department on
27.10.2024 under Annexure-4 and decisions of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Nilay Rai & Others vs. Bar
Council of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No.577 of 2024
under Annexure-5
4.3. Placing reliance on the resolution available under
Annexure-4 and the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
// 3 //
Court under Annexure-5, it is contended that Petitioners be
allowed to take the examination and be permitted to make the
application as the last date for making such application has
been extended to 08.02.2025.
5. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Commission
on the other hand placing reliance on the decision in the case
of Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India (UOI) & Others
in Civil Appeal No.4761 of 2006 decided on 23.02.2007
contended that since as on the date of making the application,
Petitioners do not have the eligibility, they are not eligible to
participate the selection process. Para-8 & 11 of the said
judgment reads as follows:-
"8. In Bhupinderpal Singh & Others v. State of Punjab &
Others [(2000) 5 SCC 262], this Court moreover
disapproved the prevailing practice in the State of Punjab
to determine the eligibility with reference to the date of
interview, inter alia, stating :
"13. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court
in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, A.P.
Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra,
District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram
Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M.
Tripura Sundari Devi, Rekha Chaturvedi v.
University of Rajasthan, M.V. Nair (Dr) v. Union of
India and U.P. Public Service Commission U.P.,
Allahabad v. Alpana the High Court has held (i)
that the cut-off date by reference to which the
eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the
candidate seeking a public employment is the date
appointed by the relevant service rules and if there
be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such
date as may be appointed for the purpose in the
advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if
// 4 //
there be no such date appointed then the eligibility
criteria shall be applied by reference to the last
date appointed by which the applications have to
be received by the competent authority. The view
taken by the High Court is supported by several
decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled
and hence cannot be found fault with. However,
there are certain special features of this case which
need to be taken care of and justice be done by
invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance
the cause of justice."
[See Jasbir Rani and Others v. State of Punjab & Another
[JT 2001 (9) SC 351 : (2002) 1 SCC 124]."
xxx xxx xxx
11. Possession of requisite educational qualification is
mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an
uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the employer would be
flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off
date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the
candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence
of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in the
advertisement, the law, therefore, as held by this Court
would be the last date for filing the application".
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties
and considering the submissions made, this Court though is
not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition with the prayer as
made, but grant liberty to the Petitioners to move an
appropriate application before Opposite Party No.2 for
consideration of their grievance as made in the Writ Petition.
It is observed that if any such application is moved by
03.02.2025, decision be taken before 08.02.2025 with due
communication.
// 5 //
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
8. Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected case
records.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
