Orissa High Court

Manoj Kumar Jena vs State Of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. ... on 4 March, 2025

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                      W.P.(C) No. 26681 of 2017

    Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
                                 ---------------
    Manoj Kumar Jena                           ......      Petitioner

                          - Versus -

    State of Odisha & Others                .......     Opp. Parties

    Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
    ________________________________________________________

    For Petitioner        :     Mr. Laxmikant Mohanty, B. Barik,
                                P.K. Nayak, Advocates.

    For Opp. Parties      :     Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
                                Addl. Government Advocate

    _________________________________________________________
    CORAM:
         JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                                JUDGMENT

04.03.2025

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

Pursuant to an advertisement published for selection

of Sikshya Sahayaks, the petitioner submitted his application

for the district of Gajapati. He was allowed to participate in the

selection process and in the provisional select list his name

found place at SL No.646 but in the final selection list, his

name was excluded. On query, he found that as per order dated

14.02.2011 of the Council of Higher Secondary Education

(CHSE) and order dated 28.02.2011 of the Government, a

candidate having vocational qualification prior to 2009 cannot

be treated as equivalent to +2 Science. Challenging such

decision, the petitioner and five other persons approached this

Court in W.P.(C) No.27500 of 2011.

2. This Court disposed of the said writ application

directing the petitioner to approach the CHSE, Odisha for grant

of necessary equivalent certificate. Though the petitioner

approached the CHSE, Odisha by submitting representation on

17.12.2011 but no action was taken. While the matter stood

thus, the Government in ST and SC Development Department

issued advertisement for engagement of Sikshya Sahayak in

Gajapati district. The petitioner applied and was provisionally

selected. According to the petitioner, several candidates having

+2 vocational courses were appointed against +2 Science post.

The petitioner specifically cites the case of one Madingi Sanjeev

Rao, who having +2 vocational qualification was selected

against +2 Science post. The petitioner, therefore, approached

the Collector, Gajapati on 21.01.2012 by submitting a grievance

petition. Grievance petition was taken up by the selection

committee under the chairmanship of the Collector, Gajapati on

10.10.2012, wherein the following decision was taken:

"As per L.No.4938/S&ME Dated 09.03.2011 regarding equivalence of +2 Vocational Course.

The Committee decided to consider status of candidates as per Resolution No.3022/CHSE(O) Dated 19.06.2010 and L.No.6657/CHSE Dated 14.08.2006 and that all the candidates previously selected having vocational education qualification/passing out the +2 vocational course prior to 19.06. date of issue of Resolution by CHSE, Odisha to be taken from the +2 Science category to +2 Arts category and to be fitted in as per merit in the Arts Stream."

"The candidate those have been engaged in the +2 Science Stream having qualification of vocational education which was not coming under the +2 Science stream shall have to be fit in as per merit in the Arts stream after issue of a show cause notice as to why they will be considered under the science stream and not under the Arts Stream in view of the Notification issued by the CHSE, Odisha and communicated in Letter No.4938/S&ME Dated:09.03.2011 of the S&ME Department."

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the

vocational course pursued by the petitioner belongs to Science

stream, therefore, he cannot be equated with +2 Arts. The

petitioner, therefore, again approached this Court in W.P.(C)

No.2980 of 2015. This Court, by order dated 06.07.2015,

directed the Collector, Gajapati to take a decision in the matter.

By order dated 28.12.2015, the Collector, Gajapati rejected the

grievance of the petitioner. On such facts, the petitioner has

approached this Court again in the present writ application

with the following prayer:

"The petitioner, therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court would be graciously pleased to consider the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, admit this writ application, issue notice to the Opposite Parties under Rule NISI calling upon the Opposite parties to show cause as to why the writ application shall not be allowed and direction shall not be issued to them to give immediate appointment to the petitioner in quashing the observation in Annexure-7 by the Opposite Party No.3 treating the petitioner as +2 Science category, in respect of the petitioner forthwith and if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or shows insufficient cause the said rule be made absolute;

And to pass such any other writ(s)/ direction(s)/ order(s) as may be deem fit and proper in the bonafide interest of justice;

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he completed the

vocational course in the year 2008 and was placed in the first

division. By letter dated 14.02.2011 the CHSE, Odisha clarified

regarding equivalence of Higher Secondary Vocational

Examination conducted by it with different subjects as Basic

Foundation Course as being equivalent to Higher Secondary

Examination. Such subjects include Physics, Chemistry,

Mathematics or Biology in Science stream. Since the petitioner

appeared in the General Knowledge course, Basic Foundation

Course, Electric Domestic Appliances theory and practical, he

comes under the +2 Science category in view of notification

dated 19.06.2010. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been

considered for the Science Stream. It is reiterated that the

candidates who have passed vocational course during the years

2006 to 2009 has studied Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics,

Biology and Engineering Drawing as Basic Foundation Course.

Since two persons having similar qualifications have been

appointed in Science stream in the same district, the petitioner

cannot be discriminated.

5. The stand of the State authorities as reflected from

their counter and additional counter filed in the case is that the

committee decided to consider the status of candidates as per

resolution dated 19.06.2010 and letter dated 14.08.2006 of the

CHSE, Odisha to the effect that all candidates selected having

vocational qualifications prior to 19.06.2010 are to be taken

from the +2 Science category to +2 Arts category to be fitted as

per merit in the Arts Stream. Further, concession is available in

case of untrained candidates belonging to SC, ST and SEBC

under +2 Science category. But the same has not been extended

to SEBC candidates in +2 Arts category. The petitioner being

SEBC candidate had applied in respect of +2 Science category.

In the vocational examination he had appeared in English,

M.I.L.(Odia), General Foundation Course, Basic Foundation

Course and Elective in Domestic Appliance. He did not appear

in any of the Science subjects. The CHSE, Odisha published

notification dated 14.02.2011 to clarify that candidates passing

vocational education from CHSE having Physics, Chemistry,

and Mathematics will be considered equivalent to +2 Science,

which the petitioner does not possess. Therefore, his case

cannot be considered. Moreover, he does not possess CT

qualification and being of SEBC category, he also cannot be

considered against +2 category. It is further stated that the +2

vocational examination in 2008 cannot be treated as equivalent

to that of the examination passed under +2 Science stream

conducted by CHSE, Odisha but the same is equivalent to +2

Arts and +2 Commerce Stream.

6. Heard Mr. Laxmikant Mohanty, learned Counsel for

the Petitioner and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Additional

Government Advocate for the State.

7. Mr. Mohanty would argue that having regard to the

fact that the petitioner has passed the Basic Foundation Course

in the vocational stream in 2008 which includes Physics,

Chemistry and Mathematics, it cannot be said that he was not

qualified for being considered against +2 Science stream. In the

clarification issued by CHSE on 14.02.2006, the HS Vocational

Examination having different subjects as Basic Foundation

Course including Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics or Biology is

treated as equivalent to Higher Secondary Examination in

Science Stream. The same thing has only been clarified further

by CHSE, Odisha in its notification dated 19.06.2010. Even

otherwise, a candidate with similar qualification as the

petitioner namely, Madingi Sanjeev Rao was engaged against

Science stream. According to Mr. Mohanty, therefore, not

granting the same benefit to the petitioner amounts to

discrimination.

8. Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned State Counsel, on the other

hand, would argue that the authorities are bound by the

notification of CHSE, Odisha granting equivalence between

Vocational Courses and HS Examination. Since the petitioner

passed in 2008, which is prior to issuance of notification dated

19.06.2010 by the CHSE, Odisha, he cannot be considered as

equivalent to +2 Science. Moreover, he being an SEBC

candidate and without any training qualification, his case also

cannot be considered in Arts stream.

9. The basic facts are not disputed in the case

inasmuch the petitioner admittedly passed the vocational

examination held in the year 2008 from Government Vocational

Junior College, Gurandi, Gajapati. The advertisement was

issued inviting applications for the engagement of Sikshya

Sahayaks in the district of Gajapati. The eligibility criteria, inter

alia, lays down that the candidate must have passed +2 Science

Examination or its equivalent examination. It has been

forcefully argued on behalf of the petitioner that he having

passed the vocational examination, which includes the Basic

Foundation Course as one of the papers, is to be treated as

equivalent to +2 Science candidate. Reference has been made to

a certificate issued by the Principal, Government Vocational

Junior College, Gurandi, Gajapati that the students who passed

Higher Secondary Vocational Examinations from the said

college in Electrical Domestic Appliances Trade (EDA) during

the years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, have studied the

subjects Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Engineering

Drawing as Basic Foundation Course (BFC) in their syllabus

prescribed by CHSE, (Odisha).

10. Further, reference is made to the clarification issued

by the CHSE to the Government vide letter No.5/ SECY/Dt

14.02.2011 regarding equivalence of the HS vocational

examinations conducted by the CHSE, Odisha, Bhubaneswar.

The said letter is quoted herein below:

"Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa, Prajnapitha, Samantapur, Bhubaneswar-751013.

*************************************** From:

Dr. J.K. Mahapatra, No.05/SECY/Dt.14/02/11 Secretary

The Special Secretary to Govt., Deptt. Of Higher Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar.

Sub: Clarification regarding equivalence of the H.S. Vocational Examinations conducted by the CHSE, Orissa, Bhubaneswar.

Sir,

As desired by you, I am directed to inform you that as per the proceedings of the Academic Committee of the Council held on 11.01.2010 and duly approved by the Government Body of the council in its meeting held on 13.01.2020 followings are the criteria for deciding equivalent to different streams of H.S. Examinations.


        H.S. Vocational Examination                   Equivalent to
       Having subjects as mentioned                   Higher Secondary
       below as Basic Foundation Course.              Examinations in


       History, Pol. Science &               -        Arts Stream
       Economics

       Accounting, Cost Management etc.      -     Commerce Stream

       Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics
        or Biology                           -     Science Stream

This is for your kind information and necessary action.

Yours faithfully, Secretary

11. It is evident that the letter refers to the proceedings

of the academic committee of the Council held on 11.01.2010

yet the letter itself was issued on 14.02.2011 [Emphasis

added]. On the above basis it is claimed that the petitioner

having Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics as Basic Foundation

Course must be held equivalent to Science stream.

Significantly, in the counter filed by the Secretary, CHSE;

notification bearing No.6657/CHSE dated 14.08.2006 has been

enclosed which reads as follows:

"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

This is for information of all concerned that the +2 Vocational Examination, conducted by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar is equivalent to the Examination conducted by the CHSE for +2 Arts and Commerce streams."

12. The above document having been submitted by the

CHSE before this Court carries much weight. Therefore, even

though it does not expressly say so, the earlier clarification

dated 14.02.2006 referred to herein before must be treated as

having been superseded by it. Moreover, the incongruity is the

said letter, is already stated, being tell-tale, this Court refrains

from saying anything further in this regard save and except that

the so-called clarification dated 14.02.2011 is not worthy of any

consideration whatsoever.

13. Another document, being notification dated

19.06.2010 has been enclosed to the counter filed by the CHSE.

Pursuant to the meeting of the Council on 13.01.2010 the

Higher Secondary Vocational Examination in certain subjects

were recognized as equivalent to that of HS Examination in

Science stream conducted by CHSE, Odisha. Said notification

mentions the Basic Foundation Course subjects as Physics,

Chemistry, Mathematics or Biology. Further it is mentioned that

the order will come into effect immediately from the date of its

issue. Thus, as between 14.08.2006 till 18.06.2010, the

principle followed by the CHSE, Odisha was that +2 vocational

examination was held to be equivalent to the examination

conducted by the CHSE for +2 Arts and Commerce Streams.

This has also been stated in so many words by CHSE in its

counter under paragraph-7 which is quoted herein below.

"7. That it is evident from the records and clarifications that a student passed in +2 Vocational Examination in 2008 cannot be treated to be equivalent to that of the examination passed under +2 Science Stream conducted by CHSE, Odisha. The same is equivalent with that of +2 Arts and +2 Commerce Stream."

(Emphasis added)

14. Having held as above, this Court finds that though

the petitioner cannot be considered for +2 Stream in the

absence of equivalence yet he can certainly be considered in +2

Arts category. It has been pleaded and argued on behalf of the

State that the petitioner being an SEBC candidate but without

CT qualification cannot be considered against +2 Arts category.

This Court, however, finds that in the meeting of the selection

committee held on 10.10.2012 under the chairmanship of the

Collector, Gajapati under the heading +2 Science CT, the

following was observed in respect of the petitioner:

3. +2 Sc. C.T.

SL Name of the Application Category Gist of complaint Observation of the case No. Applicant No.

1. Manoj Kumar 21 +2 Sc. CT Sri Manoj Kumar As per L.No.4938/S&ME Jena Jena has appeared Dated:9.3.11 regarding before the Collector, equivalence of +2 Vocational Gajapati in his Course. The Committee Grievance cell decided to consider status of regarding selection of candidates as per resolution Vocational acquired NO.3022/CHSE(O) applicant in welfare Dated:19.06.2010 and section but not by L.No.6657/CHSE DPC,(SSA). Dated:14.08.2006 and that all the candidates previously selected having vocational education qualification/Passing out the +2 vocational course prior to 19.06. date of issue of Resolution by CHSE, Odisha to be taken from the +2 Science category to +2 Arts Category and to be fitted in as per merit in the Arts Stream.

15. There is no mention of the absence of CT qualification

therein. In the speaking order passed by the Collector on

28.12.2015, also nothing has been mentioned in this regard.

The above plea appears to have been taken for the first time by

the State in its counter, which obviously is not permissible.

16. Thus, from a conspectus of analysis of facts and

relevant notifications as well as the contentions raised, this

Court holds that the petitioner, having passed the Higher

Secondary Vocational Examination in the year 2008, is eligible

to be considered for engagement in the Arts Category in view of

the notification dated 14.08.2006 of the CHSE. Further, a

similarly placed person namely, Madingi Sanjeev Rao having