Orissa High Court
Debendra Kum vs State Of Odisha on 21 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTAC
TTACK
W.A. No.2670 of 2023
Debendra Kum
Kumar Behera ..... Appellant
versus-
State of Odisha
disha and others ..... Respondents
Advocates
es appeared
app in this case:
For Appellant
ellant : Mrs. Sonita Biswal, Advocate
Advoc
For Responden
ondents : Mr. Bimbisar Dash,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
THE
E HON'BLE
HO MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM
DAM SINHA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
SAH
JUDGMENT
----------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 21st March,
Marc 2025
----------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
ARINDAM
AM SINHA,
SI ACJ.
1. Mrs.
rs. Biswal,
Bis learned advocate appears onn beh
behalf of appellant
and submits,
its, hher client had applied to be selected
ted as Hindi Teacher
pursuant to advertisement
adv dated 27th October, 2014.
014. H
His candidature
was rejected
cted fo
for the third time, compelling him
m to aagain move this
Court by W.P.(C)
W.P. no.38485 of 2020, disposed of on order dated 5th
January, 2021. Direction made in said order is reproduced
reprod below.
W.A. no.2670 of 2023
"Considerin
ering the submissions made by the partie
arties, this Writ
Petitionn sta
stands disposed of with a direction to th
the O.Ps.1 to
3 to consid
nsider the representation at the instance
ce oof petitioner
vide Annex
nnexure-7 and take a lawful decisionn in the matter
taking into account the grounds stated in thee W
Writ Petition
so alsoo the
th decision in the case of State of O
Odisha Vrs.
Ranjitaa Sam
Samal, (W.P.(C) No.3132 of 2018)."
2. Director
irectorate of Secondary Education, Odisha
disha bby office order
dated 3rd November,
Nov 2021 rejected her client's representation
rep on
purportedd reas
reasons given in paragraphs 9 and
nd 10 of the order,
reproduced
ed bel
below.
"9. Onn verification
ver of the documents of the pet
petitioner it is
seen that,
hat, the petitioner does not have any of th
the training
ication as prescribed for the post of Hindi
qualificatio indi Teachers in
the adve
advertisement 2014-15 i.e. Hindi
ndi Sikshyan
Parangat/B
gat/B.H.Ed./B.Ed in Hindi from Daksh
kshin Bharat
Hindi Prachar
Pra Sabha, Madras. He had passe
assed H.T.T.C.
(Hindi Tea
Teacher's Training Certificate) examinati
ination which is
not the prescribed training qualification
tion as per
advertisem
isement.
10. Thus,
hus, even if his Shastri (Sanskrit) qual
qualification is
accepted
ed in place of Bachelor Degree as per
er or
order passed
in O.A.. No.2954
No (C) of 2015 & batch cases and confirmed
by Hon'ble
n'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.3132/20
2/2018 State of
Odishaa Vs. Ranjita Samal, still he does not become
beco eligible
W.A. no.2670 of 2023
as he does not have the training qualificationn as prescribed
in the adve
advertisement."
(emp
(emphasis supplied)
Her client
nt onc
once again moved the writ Court.. By im
impugned order
dated 26th September,
Sep 2023 the writ petition stood dismissed. Her
client has preferred
prefe this appeal.
3. Mrs.
rs. Biswal
Bis submits, the learned single Judge erred on facts
and in law. Her
He client had equivalent qualification
tion oon training. The
learned Judge failed to appreciate the fact.. Para
Paragraph 7 from
impugnedd order
orde is reproduced below.
"7. After
ter ggoing through the materials placed by the learned
counsell appearing
ap for the Parties, it is the view
ew oof this Court
that thee Pe
Petitioner since does not have the requir
quired training
qualificatio
cation as provided in the Resolution dtd.
dtd.27.10.2014
under Annexure-3
Ann and no cogent materials
ls hhaving been
produced
ced by
b the Petitioner showing that he doe
does have the
required
ed training
tr qualification, this Court is not inclined to
interfere
re with
w the impugned order dtd.03.11.2021
.2021 so passed
by Opposi
posite Party No.2 under Annexure-6.. This
Th Court is
also not
ot inclined
in to interfere as the recruitmen
itment is of the
year 2014
014-15 and in the meantime the selection
ion pprocess has
alreadyy be
been completed as contended in thee ba
bar. Not only
that no inte
interim order was ever passed protecting
ting the interest
of the Petitioner.
Petit
In any view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to
entertain
in th
the Writ Petition and dismiss the same.
me."
W.A. no.2670 of 2023
4. Mrs.
rs. Biswal
Bis draws attention to requirement
ent oon eligibility in
dated 27th October, 2014, pursuant
resolutionn dat uant to which the
advertisement
ment was issued. She submits, relevant
nt are clauses (c) and
(d) underr parag
paragraph 1 on eligibility and clause (f) under
und paragraph 3
on educational
ational qualification. Relied upon clauses
uses are
a reproduced
below.
"1. Eligibi
igibility:-
... ... ...(c)
...(c Candidates having Bachelor degr
degree in Arts/
Commerce
erce/ Science with Bachelor degree in Edu
Education from
any univer
iversities of the State or its equivalency
cy aare eligible.
Regarding
ding Universities/ Institutions of outside
tside State, the
candidates
ates shall only be eligible for engage
gagement after
verification
ation of genuineness of their educationa
ional / training
qualificatio
cation from concerned university/institu
stitutions from
which they have obtained the degree by the conce
oncerned DEO.
(d) Such
ch outside
o university/institution candidates
ates shall have
to produc
duce the authenticated proof of equiva
quivalency and
NCTE rec
recognition in support of their qualifica
lification at the
time off verification
ver failing which they will not
ot be eligible in
the selectio
ection process."
"3. Educat
ucational Qualification:-
... ...(f)
(f) Hindi Teacher - Bachelor's degre
egree from a
recognized
ized University with Hindi as one of the
t elective
subjectt wi
with minimum 50% marks in aggregat
egate (45% for
SC/ST/PH/
/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) or with
th R
Rastrabhasa
Ratna from Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti, Ward
ardha or with
W.A. no.2670 of 2023
Sastri from Orissa Rastrabhasa Parisada,, Pu
Puri or with
Snatakaa (A
(Acquired by June-2005, the date up to which the
temporary
rary recognition has been granted)
d) ffrom Hindi
Sikshaya
ya SSamiti, Orissa, Cuttack or an equiva
uivalent degree
from a rec
recognized institution with at least 50% marks in
aggregate
ate (45% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates)
cand and
Hindi Sikshyan
Siks Parangat from Kendriya Hindi
indi Sansthan,
B.H.Ed. (a course prescribed by NCT
Agra/B.H. CTE) from a
Institution
tion recognized by NCTE and affili
ffiliated to a
recognized
ized university/B.Ed. in Hindi (a course
rse prescribed
by NCTE)
TE) from Dakhin Bharat Hindi Prach
rachar Sabha,
Madras,
s, a institution recognized by NCTE and
nd aaffiliated to
a recognize
gnized university.
OR ... ..."
(emp
(emphasis supplied)
5. Shee draws
draw attention to her client's qualification
ication on training. It
is a certificate
icate issued by Board of Secondary Educa
Education, Orissa in
respect of H
Hindi Teachers' Training Certificate
ificate Examination,
certifyingg appe
appellant passed Hindi Teachers' Trainin
raining Certification
Examination
tion held in the month of May, 1993 and was
wa placed in the
ivision. She then refers to resolution dated 18th February,
'Pass' division
2008 adopted
opted by the School and Mass Educatio
ucation Department,
xtraordinary on 25th
publishedd by authority in Orissa Gazette Extraor
February,, 200
2008. She points out statementss mad
made therein on
equivalency
ncy in respect of Hindi Teachers' Training
Train Certificate
W.A. no.2670 of 2023
course and
nd pronouncement
pro on equivalency regarding
arding certificate had
by her client
lient as required training under the advertisem
ertisement. Clauses 8
and 11 off said resolution are reproduced below.
"8. With
ith regard
r to equivalency of Hindi Teache
achers Training
Certificate
cate Course with that of B.Ed. Degree, the Principal,
Hindi Training
Tra Institute, Cuttack has clarifie
rified that the
courses,
s, sy
syllabus and status or Hindi Teacher
chers Training
Certificate
icate Course have been increased to a h
higher level
which is equivalent
eq with that or Hindi Shikshya
shyan Parangat
course conducted
con by the Central Institute of Hindi,
H Agra.
as ffurther clarified that the duration
He has ation of three
examinatio
nations, i.e. H.T.T.C. Hindi Shikshyan Parangat
Pa and
B. Ed. are
re same, i.e. one year duration andd th
their courses
are equal
qual in content and recommended for declaring
Hindi Teachers
Tea Training Certificate Coursee as equivalent
to B.Ed.
d. D
Degree and to allow higher scale
le oof pay vide
No.36 dated the 31st October 2005 andd Letter
Letter No.3 Le No.91,
dated the 19th May 2006. The Director,
tor, Secondary
Education,
tion, Orissa has offered the same view
w to allow the
status and scale of pay to Hindi Teachers
rs w
with that of
Trainedd Gr
Graduate Teachers.
xx
xxx xxx xxx xx
xxx
11. The
he Hindi Teachers Training Certifica
tificate Course
conducted
cted by the Hindi Training Institute
titute, Cuttack,
Bhubanesw
neswar and Sambalpur is declared as eq
equivalent to
Hindi Shikshyan
Shik Parangat vis-à-vis B.Ed.. De
Degree of an
Indian University
Un for the purpose of employmen
ment."
W.A. no.2670 of 2023
Thus there
re is cclear demonstration of appellant'ss eligibility
eligi including
on educational
ational and training qualifications. She adds,
add her client's
name figured
gured in the merit list, after which his
is candidature
can stood
rejected.
6. Lastly
stly Mrs. Biswal relies on judgment off the Supreme Court
in Chandraka
drakala Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan,, reported
rep in (2012)
3 SCC 129,, paragraph
pa 8, reproduced below.
"8. Thee word
w "equivalent" must be given a rreasonable
meaning.
ng. B
By using the expression "equivalent"
nt" oone means
that there
ere are some degrees of flexibility or aadjustment
which do nnot lower the stated requirement. There
here has to be
some diffe
difference between what is equivalentt an
and what is
exact. Apart
Apa from that, after a person is pro
provisionally
selected,
d, a certain degree of reasonable expecta
ectation of the
selection
on being
b continued also comes into existen
istence."
She seekss inte
interference in appeal for impugnedd in th
the writ petition
office order da 3rd November, 2021 being set
der dated et asid
aside and direction
for her client
lient to be appointed.
7. Mr.
r. Dash,
Da learned advocate, Additional
itional Government
Advocatee appe
appears on behalf of State and submits,
its, im
impugned in the
writ petition
ition office
o order was decision taken on fa
facts. Appellant
does not have requisite qualification on training
ng as required
r by the
W.A. no.2670 of 2023
advertisement.
ment. Moreover, Board of Secondary Education,
Edu Orissa
cannot grant
rant a certificate in respect of teacher traini
training as it is only
concernedd with examination up to 10th standard.
8. Referrin
eferring to clause (d) under paragraphh 1 oon eligibility in
aforesaid resolution
resol dated 27th October, 2014, pursuant
pursua to which the
advertisement
ment was issued he submits, the statement
ment on equivalency
in clause
se (d) under paragraph 1 on eligibility
gibility talks about
equivalency
ncy in respect of outside universities.. In appellant's
a case
his contention
tion was the converse. He urged, a certific
certificate granted by
Board off Sec
Secondary Education, Orissa to be equivalent
equ to the
named univers
niversity, from which the training was requ
equired under the
advertisement.
ment. Hence, appellant's contention on equivalency
eq was
correctly rejec
rejected by the learned single Judge.. Refe
Referring to clause
(f) underr parag
paragraph 3 on educational qualification
tion M
Mr. Dash points
out, requireme
irement on training from Kendriya Hindi
ndi Sa
Sansthan, Agra is
a requirement
ement in conjunction, earlier requirements
ements being in the
alternative.
ve. As such no interference is warranted
ranted in appeal on
impugnedd order
orde being a good one.
9. Paragrap
ragraphs 9 and 10 of impugned in thee writ petition office
order 3rd November,
No 2021 gave the reason
on fo
for rejection of
appellant's
t's can
candidature. Paragraph-9 says, onn verification
veri of the
W.A. no.2670 of 2023
documents
ts it was
w seen appellant does not have training
trainin qualification
as prescribe
escribed for the post i.e. Hin
Hindi Sikshyan
Parangat/B.H.E
t/B.H.Ed./B.Ed. in Hindi from Dakhin Bhara
Bharat Hindi Prachar
Sabha, Madras
adras. In the paragraph it is acknowledged
ledged that appellant
passed Hindi
indi T
Teachers' Training Certificate Examin
xamination, which is
not the prescrib
rescribed training qualification as per the advertisement.
ad In
paragraphh 10 iit was said, even if appellant's academic
academ educational
qualification
tion oof Shastri (Sanskrit) qualificationn is ac
accepted, he still
does not have the training qualification meaning
aning thereby, from
Hindi Sikshyan
kshyan Parangat. Thus, reason in paragraph
graph 110 of the office
order is reiteration
reiter of the reason in paragraph
raph 9. Appellant's
contention
on on the reason for rejection is reliance
eliance on aforesaid
dated 18th February, 2008 of thee Sch
resolutionn dat School and Mass
Educationn Dep
Department. Paragraphs 8 and 11 from the resolution
have been reproduced
rep above. The situation off appellant's
appe seeking
converse equiv
equivalency stands addressed by the resolu
resolution. Paragraph
11 of the resolution
reso declares Hindi Teachers' Training
Train Certificate
course condu
conducted by Hindi Training Instit
Institute, Cuttack,
Bhubaneswar
swar and Sambalpur as equivalent to Hi
Hindi Shikshyan
Parangat vis--à-vis B.Ed. degree of an Indiann Uni
University for the
purpose of em
employment. We find from thee adve
advertisement, the
W.A. no.2670 of 2023
relevant requirement
requir includes B.Ed., amongstt other qualifications
on training.
10. Wee have
hav not been shown an allegationn and in pursuance
thereof materia
aterial to establish that the certificate issued
issue by the Board
of Secondary
ndary Education, Orissa in favour of ap
appellant, is not
genuine. Cont
Contention in the office order is that it is not the
qualification
tion rrequired. State has followed through
rough on submission
regardingg conv
converse equivalency being claimed, as not
no contemplated
in clausee (d) under paragraph 1 on eligibilityy given
give in aforesaid
dated 27th October, 2014. Chandrakala (supra) comes to
resolutionn date
aid of appellan
pellant.
11. Thee facts
fac stand established. Appellantt poss
possesses requisite
eligibilityy and educational qualification to be considered for
appointment. Office order dated 3rd November,
ent. O er, 20
2021 is set aside
and quashed.
hed. Appellant's
A name in the merit listt stand
stands restored. The
appointing
ng authority
auth is to consider appellant's case ffor appointment
on such restora
restoration as on date his name was placed
ced in the merit list.
12. Impugne
pugned order is reversed. The appeal is disp
disposed of.
( Arindam
ndam Sinha )
Actingg Ch
Chief Justice
Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT
(M.S.
.S. Sahoo)
S
Reason: Authentication Jud
Judge
Radha/Jyostna
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 24-Mar-2025 19:17:02
W.A. no.2670 of 2023
