Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Wa No.723 Of 2025 Page 1 Of 36 on 14 October, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WA No.723 of 2025
In the matter of an Appeal under Article 4 of
the Orissa High Court Order, 1948
read with
Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting
the High Court of Judicature at Patna
and
Rule 6 of Chapter-III and Rule 2 of Chapter-VIII
of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948
***
1. State of Odisha
Represented by
Secretary
(now Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government)
School and Mass Education Department,
At: Lok Seva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
2. The Director
Secondary Education, Odisha
At: Heads of Department Building,
Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
3. The Collector, Angul
At/P.O./District: Angul.
4. District Education Officer, Angul
At/P.O./District: Angul. ... Appellants
(Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 4 in
the writ petition)
-VERSUS-
Pabitra Behera,
Aged about 44 years
Son of Late Dhaneswar Behera,
At: Parakula, P.O.: Pikarali,
P.S.: Patkura,
District: Kendrapara. ... Respondent
(petitioner in the
writ petition)
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellants : Mr. Saswat Das,
Additional Government Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sarat Chandra Mekap,
Advocate
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. HARISH TANDON
AND
HONOURABLE JUSTICE
MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Date of Hearing : 19.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment :14.10.2025
J UDGMENT
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.--
Legality, propriety and rationality in disposing off the
writ petition vide Order dated 28.11.2024 passed in
W.P.(C) No.24577 of 2023 by a learned Single Bench of
this Court exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India quashing Order dated
20.01.2023 issued by the Collector, Angul (Annexure-3
of the writ petition) and directing to appoint the
respondent herein (petitioner in the writ petition) as
against available vacant post, the appellants-
functionaries of the Government of Odisha have
preferred the intra-Court appeal provided under Clause
10 of the Letters Patent Constituting the High Court of
Judicature at Patna read with Article 4 of the Orissa
High Court Order, 1948 and Rule 6 of Chapter-III and
Rule 2 of Chapter-VIII of the Rules of the High Court of
Orissa, 1948.
Facts:
2. Facts leading to filing of this writ appeal are narrated
infra.
2.1. In pursuance of Resolution No.23404-- VIII(B)-SME-(X)-
32/2014/SME, dated 27.10.2014 issued by the School
and Mass Education Department, Odisha in adherence
to the General Administration Department Notification
No.32010/Gen., dated 12.11.2013 and No.1147/Gen.,
dated 17.01.2014 read with No.4587/Gen., dated
15.02.2014, which prescribed the rules for recruitment
to Group-C, D and B posts respectively, the respondent,
having qualification of "Rastrabhasa Sastri" from Odisha
Rastrabhasa Parisad, Puri and Bachelor Degree in Arts
offered his candidature in Government High School
related to the District of Angul for the post of Hindi
Teacher (Contractual).
2.2. A Notice dated 04.02.2016 superscribing "for the
candidates (Applicants for the Post of Contractual
Teacher as per Advertisement 2014-15 (including
Advertisement dated 07.01.2016)" has come to be
published by the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha
wherefrom it is transpired that,
"1. More than 40,000 candidates applied for post of
Contract Teacher in Government High Schools as per
Advertisement 2014-15 (published on 23.10.2014
and 13.01.2015).
2. Again pursuant to Order dated 17.12.2015 passed
by the Hon‟ble Odisha Administrative Tribunal,
Cuttack in O.A. No.3589 (C) of 2014 and 137 other
cases and consequent upon issue of Corrigendum
No.284/SME, dated 06.01.2016 by School and Mass
Education Department, Odisha, another
Advertisement was published by Director,
Secondary Education, Odisha on 07.01.206. In
response to this more than 9,000 candidates have
submitted online application as on 22.01.2016 (Last
Date). Some of them were not eligible to apply as per
conditions laid down in Advertisemnt dated
07.01.2016 and so their applications have not been
taken into consideration.
3. Out of the candidates who applied as per the
Advertisements mentioned in paragraphs (1) and (2)
above, a list of candidates has been prepared whose
documents shall be verified from 06.02.2016 at
district level. The list will be available in the Odisha
Primary Education Programme Authority website in
link „Tabulation Sheet of Applications for verification
of documents‟ from 06.02.2016 onwards.
***"
2.3. The representation for consideration of his case being
not attended to, the respondent filed O.A. No.814 (C) of
2017 before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal,
Cuttack Bench which came to be disposed of with the
following observation vide Order dated 21.07.2017:
"Considering the submissions of both sides, and without
going into the merit of the case, a copy of the paper book
be sent to the respondent No.3 at the cost of the applicant
with direction to treat the same as representation,
consider and pass appropriate order within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order and communicate the result thereof to the applicant
soon thereafter."
2.4. The Collector, Angul in Office Order dated 21.09.2017
issued from the District Education Office, Angul,
indicated having considered the case of the respondent
as directed by the learned Odisha Administrative
Tribunal, rejected the representation assigning following
reasons:
"Pursuant to the direction of the Hon‟ble Tribunal
aforesaid, the Respondent No.3, i.e., Collector, Angul
considered the representation of the applicant, treating
the contents of the O.A. and decided as follows:
That, the applicant filed the aforesaid O.A seeking
direction of the Hon‟ble Tribunal to the respondent No.3,
i.e., Collector Angul to consider the representation at
annexure-6 for engagement of Contract Teacher in Govt.
High Schools including Upgraded High Schools under
Angul district in 2016.
That, the applicant applied for engagement of Contract
Teacher (Hindi) in Govt. High Schools including Upgraded
High Schools under Angul district having qualification
Bachelor Degree with Sastri from Odisha
Rastrabhasa Parisad, Puri which is not the
requisite qualification for engagement of Contract
Teacher (Hindi) in Govt. High Schools including
Upgraded High Schools as per Govt. Resolution No.
23404, dated 27.10.2014 of S & ME Deptt. Odisha,
Bhubaneswar.
That, the list of candidates selected for document
verification along with a notice was published in OPEPA
website on dt.04.02.2016 informing the candidates to get
their documents verified between 06.02.2016 to
10.02.2016. An advertisement was published in local
newspaper. Detailed date wise programme and venue
was notified in OPEPA website. In the notice dated
04.02.2016 it was clearly mentioned in the last para that
„Candidature of applicants not attending verification shall
not be considered for selection process. Such applicants
will forfeit their claim for the post of contract teacher‟.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the
representation of the applicant, treating the contents of
the O.A. deserve no consideration and is hereby rejected."
2.5. Said decision of the Collector, Angul was carried to the
learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench,
Cuttack by way of an Application under Section 19 of
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which was
registered as O.A. No.3094 (C) of 2017. On the said
Tribunal being abolished by virtue of Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department
of Personnel and Training) Notification F.No. A-
11014/10/2015-AT [G.S.R. 552 (E).], dated 2nd August,
2019, said Original Application is transferred to this
Court and converted to writ petition, which was
renumbered as WPC (OAC) No.3094 of 2017. This Court
vide Order dated 18.10.2022 while intermeddling with
above order of the Collector, directed said authority to
allow the respondent to get the documents verified with
observation that "if on such verification it is found that
the petitioner (respondent herein) possesses the requisite
qualification in accordance with the qualification
prescribed in the Resolution dated 27.10.2014 and if
vacancies are still available in the district of Angul as
against the post of Hindi Teacher, necessary steps be
taken to provide the appointment to the petitioner as
against any such vacant post".
2.6. Though the respondent was called for verification of
documents on 15.11.2022, the candidature of the
respondent was rejected vide Office Order No.534, dated
20.01.2023 by the Collector, Angul with the following
observation and reason(s):
"Whereas the copy of online application submitted by the
petitioner for the post of Contract Teacher has been
verified and detected that he was having the following
qualification with percentage of marks as indicated
against each degree:
Name of Total marks Total marks Actual percentage
the qualification secured as secured as of marks
mentioned by ascertained at the
the petitioner in time of verification
the application
HSC 317 317 42.26
Rastrabhasa 674 510 63.75
Sastri
Whereas on verification of documents in support of
qualifications acquired and marks secured by the
petitioner in different degrees it is observed that the
petitioner is ineligible for the post of Hindi Teacher
(Contractual) for the following reasons so far as provisions
as contained in Resolution dated 27.10.2014 is
concerned:
i) The petitioner‟s case is coming under Category-I
partly as he is not having training qualification.
ii) In order to be eligible under Category-I a candidate
has to possess 50% marks in aggregate in
Graduation as well as in Rastrabhasa Ratna or
Sastri or Snataka (45% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC
candidates). In the instant case, the petitioner being
a SC candidate has to secure 45% or more marks
both in Graduation and Sastri. But his percentage of
marks in aggregate in Graduation is below 45%.
Therefore, after careful examination of all facts, it is
concluded that the claim of the petitioner for engagement
as Hindi Teacher (Contractual) merits no consideration
and hence rejected."
2.7. Assailing the refusal to accede to the claim of the
respondent for engagement as Hindi Teacher
(Contractual), a writ petition, registered as W.P.(C)
No.24577 of 2023, was filed. Said writ petition was
disposed of vide Order dated 28.11.2024 by the learned
Single Bench with the following observation(s):
"***
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia
challenging Order dated 20.01.2023 so passed by
the Collector, Angul-opposite party No.3 under
Annexure-3. Vide the said order claim of the
petitioner for being appointed as a Hindi Teacher
pursuant to the Advertisement issued on 27.10.2014
for the year 2014-15 has been rejected.
***
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties and considering the submission made, this
Court finds that pursuant to the earlier order passed
by this Court on 18.10.2022 in WPC (OAC) No.3094
of 2017, Opp. Party No.3 allowed the Petitioner to
verify his documents. But claim of the Petitioner
has been rejected on the ground that Petitioner
has not secured the required 45% mark in his
Graduation.
6.1. This Court after going through the mark sheet
available under Annexure-9 finds that Petitioner has
secured 428 marks out of 700 marks in his Shastri
Examination, which is equivalent to +3. Since
Petitioner has secured more than 61% in his
Graduation, the ground on which claim of the
Petitioner has been rejected, as per the considered
view of this Court is not sustainable in the eye of
law.
6.2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order
dtd.20.01.2023 so issued by Opp. Party No.3 under
Annexure-3. While quashing the said order, this
Court directs Opp. Party No.3 to provide appointment
to the Petitioner as against any available vacancy
and allow him to undergo the training in terms of the
order passed by this Court in the above noted two
(2) cases 1 . This Court directs Opp. Party No.3 to
complete the entire exercise within a period of two
(2) months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of."
2.8. Dissatisfied thereby, the appellants-functionaries of the
Government of Odisha have filed the instant writ appeal.
Hearing:
3. The writ appeal challenging the Order dated 28.11.2024
passed in W.P.(C) No.24577 of 2023 has been preferred
1 Nihar Ranjan Sarangi Vrs. State of Odisha and others, WPC (OAC) No.1976 of
2015, disposed of on 23rd July, 2021 and Satyabrata Nayak and others Vrs.
State of Odisha and others, WPC (OAC) No.902 of 2016, disposed of on 15 th
September, 2021.
with a delay, which was condoned by this Court vide
Order dated 18.06.2025. Accordingly, it was directed to
be posted under the heading "Fresh Admission".
3.1. On the consent of the counsel for the respective parties,
this matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of
"Fresh Admission" as short point is involved whether
"Rastrabhasa Sastri" qualification is to be considered
equivalent to Bachelor‟s Degree (+3/B.A.) so as to
construe that the respondent has requisite qualification
with adequate percentage of marks in aggregate so that
his eligibility can be examined for the post of Hindi
Teacher (Contractual).
3.2. Accordingly, heard Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the appellants and Sri Sarat
Chandra Mekap, learned Advocate representing the
respondent.
Rival contentions and submissions:
4. Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government
Advocate drew attention of this Court to the Resolution
No. VIII(B)SME-(X)-32/2014/23404/SME, dated
27.10.2014 issued by the Government of Odisha in
School and Mass Education Department to assert the
stand of the appellants that for being considered for the
post of Hindi Teacher (Contractual), mere having more
than 50% (Unreserved candidates) or 45%
(SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) marks in aggregate
would not suffice, but the candidate was required to
secure more than such percentage of marks in
Bachelor‟s Degree. He, justifying the Order dated 20th
January, 2023 passed by the Collector, Angul,
supported the reasons ascribed therein to reject the
representation of the respondent.
4.1. He would, therefore, submit that the respondent had
acquired B.A. Degree without Hindi as an elective
subject having secured less than 45% of marks. This
apart, the respondent, a candidate for the post of Hindi
Teacher (Contractual) against the Scheduled Caste
category, having not secured more than 45% of marks in
"Graduation and Sastri", inasmuch as "Rastrabhasa
Sastri" qualification being not sole eligibility condition,
no infirmity could have been imputed against the order
of rejection of the representation.
4.2. Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government
Advocate advanced contention that the respondent was
not eligible for being considered for the post of Hindi
Teacher (Contractual) as Rastrabhasa Sastri
qualification at no stretch of imagination be treated as
equivalent to Bachelor‟s Degree as the Government of
Odisha has not declared such qualification as having
equivalence. Expanding his argument he submitted that
the learned Single Bench relying on two cases, i.e., Nihar
Ranjan Sarangi Vrs. State of Odisha and others, WPC
(OAC) No.1976 of 2015, disposed of on 23rd July, 20212
and Satyabrata Nayak and others Vrs. State of Odisha
and others, WPC (OAC) No.902 of 2016, disposed of on
15th September, 20213, directed the appellants to allow
the respondent to undergo training and provide
appointment against any available vacancy fell in error.
The issue raised in the writ petition (WP(C) No.24577 of
2023) is not similar to the cases of Nihar Ranjan Sarangi
(supra) and Satyabrata Nayak (Supra).
4.3. Beseeching indulgence in this matter, Sri Saswat Das,
learned Additional Government Advocate, insisted for
setting aside the Order dated 28.11.2024 of the learned
Single Judge passed in W.P.(C) No.24577 of 2023 and
restore the Office Order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the
Collector, Angul.
2 The matter was carried by the Government of Odisha in intra-Court appeal
under the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna
being registered as W.A. No.1028 of 2022, which was dismissed on the ground
of inordinate delay of 340 days in preferring the writ appeal. The matter is now
before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary
No(s).22758 of 2024, wherein the following Order has been passed on
11.07.2024:
"Delay condoned.
Ms. Anindita Pujari, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that notice in
a similar matter [SLP(C) Diary No.21956/2024] pertaining to Hindi Teacher is
pending consideration before this Court.
Issue notice. Tag with SLP(C) Diary No.21956/2024."
3 The matter was carried by the Government of Odisha in intra-Court appeal
under the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna
being registered as W.A No.557 of 2022. Having condoned the delay in
preferring said writ appeal, the Division Bench of this Court passed following
Order on 15.09.2022:
"7. There shall be stay of the impugned order dated 15 th September, 2021
passed in WPC (OAC) No.902 of 2016 by the learned Single Judge during
the pendency of this appeal."
5. Sri Sarat Chandra Mekap, learned Advocate, per contra,
made valiant attack on the contentions raised by the
appellants and reasserted his stand by stating that the
respondent has secured 428 marks out of 700 marks in
Shastri Examination, which is equivalent to +3/B.A.
(Bachelor‟s Degree). Having secured 63.75% marks, i.e.,
more than 45% in Shastri Examination, which fact
remained undisputed by the appellants, the rejection of
the claim of the respondent vide impugned order of the
Collector, Angul on the specious plea that he has not
secured more than 45% in his Graduation cannot be
held to be tenable in the eye of law.
5.1. It is submitted that the respondent has "Bachelor Degree
from a recognized university" "with Sastri from Odisha
Rastrabhasa Parisad, Puri". Having satisfied twin
condition as is required under Resolution dated
27.10.2014, the approach of the Collector, Angul is
without proper comprehension.
5.2. Advancing further argument, it is vehemently contested
that even though the respondent at the relevant point of
time was an untrained hand, in view of the decision of
this Court in the case of Nihar Ranjan Sarangi Vs. State
of Odisha & Ors., WPC (OAC) No.1976 of 2015, he is
entitled to be consideration for the post of Hindi Teacher
(Contractual). This Court vide Order dated 23.07.2021
has observed that such untrained candidates shall also
be appointed by providing them opportunity to acquire
the training. He submitted that the learned Single Judge
has rightly referred to Paragraph 7 of the said order,
which reads as follows:
"7. On reading of the aforesaid clear provision made in
the resolution to make a candidate eligible to apply
for the post of Contractual Hindi Teacher in the Govt.
Secondary Schools in 2014-15, this Court finds,
there is prescription of so many qualifications
prescribed therein for one becoming eligible to apply
against the post of Contractual Hindi Teacher and
one of such qualification is, one must be having
Bachelor‟s degree from a recognized University with
Hindi as one of the elective subject with minimum
50% marks in aggregate and in case of
SC/ST/PH/OBC/S.E.B.C minimum 45% marks in
aggregate or with Rastrabhasa Ratna from
Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti, Wardha or with Sastri
from Orissa Rastrabhasa Parisada, Puri or with
Snataka (Acquired by June-2005, the date up to
which the temporary recognition has been granted)
from Hindi Sikshya Samiti, Orissa, Cuttack. This
being the required qualification; on reading of the
counter affidavit this Court finds, there is no dispute
as to the Petitioner having a Bachelor‟s degree from
a recognized university for Hindi Teacher by way of
Rastravasa Shastri under the Odisha Rastravasa
Parisad, Jagarnath Dham, Puri and on entire
reading of the clause 3(f) this Court nowhere finds
the requirement of Hindi training qualification for
Hindi Teacher. Further for the bracket portion below
the condition 3(f) providing opportunity to provide
training after being eligible/qualified, the stand of
the department that there was requirement for
training, remains unfounded. In such view of the
matter, this Court finds, the stand taken by the
contesting Opposite Parties remains wholly contrary
to the condition at clause 3(f) in the resolution vide
Annexure-4. It is, in this view of the matter, this
Court finds, the ground of not selecting the Petitioner
is not germane to the condition imposed in the
resolution vide Annexure-4. As a consequence this
Court finds, not selecting the Petitioner for the post of
Contractual Hindi Teacher pursuant to the
advertisement in question is illegal. Since the
Petitioner was fulfilling all the required qualification
for the post of Contractual Hindi Teacher in
Government Schools in 2014-15 pursuant to the
resolution vide Annexure-4, this Court directs, in the
event the Petitioner fulfills other conditions, the
competent authority to draw a fresh select list of
Contractual Hindi Teacher in Government Schools
pursuant to the advertisement in question forthwith,
preferably within a period one month and in the
event the name of the Petitioner finds place within
the required candidate, the Petitioner shall be
appointed against the said post. In the event there is
possibility of disturbing any of the selected person,
such person may be provided with opportunity. For
the Petitioner going to get the benefit through this
judgment and as the litigation process involving the
Petitioner continued for over six years, this Court
further directs, in the event the Petitioner gets
appointment on re-drawl of fresh selection list, the
Petitioner be treated to have been recruited in the
post of Contractual Hindi Teacher in the year 2014-
15 and so far as arrear is concerned, it shall be
calculated notionally. However, the other
entitlements provided to the similarly situated
persons during this period shall be calculated for the
purpose of fixation of scale of pay of the Petitioner
presently and this period will also be calculated for
the purpose of pensionary benefit, if any."
5.3. Sri Sarat Chandra Mekap, learned Advocate referred to
following view expressed in the Judgment dated
15.09.2021 rendered in WPC (OAC) No. 902 of 2016 &
batch (Satyabrata Nayak & Ors. Vs. State of Odisha &
Ors.):
"8. On perusal of the qualification prescribed for Hindi
Teacher, as mentioned above, it appears that only
eligible candidates can make application for
consideration of Contract Teacher (Hindi) pursuant to
advertisement issued for the year 2014-15. Clause-
3(f) of the advertisement which has been placed in
the bracket makes it clear that the untrained
candidates shall have to undergo required training
within the timeline as prescribed by Government.
Thereby, necessary implication of incorporating this
clause clearly indicates that though qualification has
been prescribed as eligibility criteria for making an
application, the untrained candidates can also make
an application but they have to undergo required
training within the timeline as prescribed by the
Government. It is not in dispute that the petitioners
have got requisite qualification for appointment as
Contract Teacher (Hindi). But only difficulty is that
they had not acquired the training qualification by
the time they submitted the application, though they
had undergone training and result thereof was not
published. After submission of applications when
result was published, before their applications were
taken into consideration, even though they produced
the training qualification certificates, their
applications were rejected stating that "B.Ed. after
06.04.2015" or "certificate produced after
06.04.2015". The grounds for rejection of their
applications cannot sustain, in view of the
stipulation made in clause-3(f) of the resolution
dated 27.10.2014. If untrained candidates can have
right to make application and subsequently they can
undergo required training within the timeline as
prescribed by the Government, submission of their
applications even as untrained candidates, cannot
be said to be faulted with. Rather, their applications
should have been considered as untrained
candidates for selection to the post of Contract
Teacher (Hindi) and they should have been allowed
to undergo required training within the timeline as
prescribed by the Government. As such, the present
petitioners stand on a better footing in accordance
with the stipulation made in clause-3(f) of the
resolution 27.10.2014. Meaning thereby, even
though they had applied as untrained candidates
and undergone training, but result thereof was not
published by the time they submitted their
applications. But before consideration of their
applications, they had already acquired the
qualification of training and, thereby, their
applications should not and could not have been
rejected by the authority stating "B.Ed. after
06.04.2015" or "certificate produced after
06.04.2015" and, as such, disqualifying them from
participating in the process of selection is absolutely
non application of mind by the authority and
unwarranted. Similar view has already been taken
by this Court in Nihar Ranjan Sarangi (supra)."
5.4. It is, accordingly, strenuously urged that since the
respondent has secured the required percentage of
marks in "Rastrabhasa Sastri" which is equivalent to
Graduation, and in view of the decisions rendered by
this Court in the above noted cases, the Office Order
dated 20.01.2023 of the Collector, Angul, being
vulnerable, the same is rightly interfered with by the
learned Single Judge.
5.5. Therefore, he submitted that the Order dated
28.11.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.24577 of 2023 does not
warrant indulgence in the present intra-Court appeal.
Discussions and analysis:
6. As is apparent from bare perusal of Office Order dated
20.01.2023 of the Collector, Angul rejecting the
representation, the respondent is held to be ineligible for
the post of Hindi Teacher (Contractual) on the ground
that he has no training qualification and he, a candidate
in the category of Schedule Caste, has secured less than
45% of marks in aggregate in the Bachelor‟s Degree
Examination. It is bone of contention that though in B.A.
(+3) the respondent has secured 36% of marks in
aggregate, as he secured 63.75% (Actual percentage of
marks vide Table given in the Order dated 20.01.2023 of
the Collector, Angul) in "Rastrabhasa Sastri", which is
claimed to be equivalent to Bachelor‟s Degree
qualification, the same should have been considered for
the purpose of ascertaining eligibility for the post of
Hindi Teacher (Contractual).
6.1. This Court was taken to a letter of the Utkal University
issued through Deputy Registrar (Special Cell) vide
document dated 31.07.2012. In the said document it is
declared as follows:
"Utkal University
Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar - 751004
Equivalence of Degrees
Sl. Name of the University Degrees of the
No. University
* * *
164. Equivalence was made for Alankar With +3 Hindi (Pass)
Hindi 1st, 2nd, 3rd year of Gurukul of Utkal University
Kanderi Viswavidyalaya in +3
degree Hindi
(2) Equivalence was made for With +3 Pass and
Rastrabhasa Ratna and Snatak Elective Hindi only
(3) Equivalence was made for B.H.Ed. With B.Ed. of Utkal
of Utkal University University
* * *
168. Odisha Rastrabasa Parisada, Puri Rastrabasa Sastri
with +3 Hindi
Pass
* * *"
6.2. Another Notification dated 28th October, 2011 issued by
the Utkal University notified as follows:
"Notification No.A.C. Equi/50(A)(P)/50994/2011,
dated 28.10.2011
Sl. Name of the University Degree equivalent
No. with Utkal
University
* * *
5. Odisha Rastrabasa Parisad, Puri Rastrabasa Sastri
with +3 Hindi Pass
* * *"
6.3. The Government of India, Ministry of Education and
Social Welfare (Department of Education), New Delhi, in
Letter dated 26.07.1979 recognised Hindi Examination
as follows:
"Subject: Recognition of Hindi Examination conducted by
Voluntary Hindi Organisations
Sir,
I am directed to convey the approval of the
Government of India to the extensions of the present
period of recognitions to the following examinations
conducted by the Voluntary Hindi Organisations for
the period shown against each:
Name of the Name of the Standard of Hindi Period upto
Organisation Examination prescribed in the which
equivalent Examination recognition
granted
Orissa 1. Vinod SLC Permanent"
Rastrabhasa 2. Praveen Inter
Parisad, Puri 3. Shastri B.A.
6.4. This Court is persuaded to have regard to the view
expressed in the case of Smruti Rekha Mishra Vrs. State
of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.41672 of 2021, vide Order dated
06.01.20224 wherein it has been held as follows:
"8. *** So far the issue of degree of Sastri by Odisha
Rastrabhasa Parishad, Puri is concerned, the same
is no more res-integra. The Orissa Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar while
adjudicating O.A. No.1090 of 2016 was also
required to adjudicate the above noted issue. Vide
Order dated 24th May, 2019 passed in
O.A.No.1090 2016 the Orissa Administrative
Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the
degree of Sastri from Odisha Rastrabhasa
Parishad, Puri along with Bachelor Degree and
M.A. in Hindi constitutes sufficient eligibility
for being appointed to the post of Contractual
Hindi Teacher.
9. The Order dated 24th May, 2019 passed by Orissa
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Bhubaneswar in O.A.No.1090 of 2016 was assailed
by the State Government before this Court in W.P.(C)
No.10616 of 2020. This Court vide Order dated
7th September, 2020 has confirmed the order
of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar.
4 Reported at 2022 (I) ILR-CUT 219. The matter was carried by the Government of
Odisha in intra-Court appeal under the Letters Patent constituting the High
Court of Judicature at Patna being registered as W.A. No.890 of 2022, which
was dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay of 149 days in preferring the
writ appeal. The matter is now before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).18318 of 2024, wherein the following
Order has been passed on 12.07.2024:
"1. Delay condoned.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that notice in a similar
matter [SLP(C) Diary No.21956 of 2024] pertaining to Hindi Teacher is
pending consideration before this Court.
3. Issue notice. Tag with SLP(C) Diary No. 21956 of 2024."
***
12. In the meanwhile, the State Government challenged
the order dated 7th September 2020 passed in
W.P.(C) No.10616 of 2020 before the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India by filing SLP(C) No.195-196
of 2021. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by
order dated 20th January, 2021 disposed of
the SLP thereby the order passed by the Orissa
Administrative Tribunal has been confirmed
and the said order has attained finality."
6.5. Under such premise and in presence of loud and clear
enunciation of position with respect to declaration of
equivalence of educational qualification, the marks
awarded to the respondent could not have been ignored
while preparing the list of candidates. The appellants,
therefore, fell in gross error in not taking into
consideration the percentage of marks obtained in Sastri
Examination while computing the aggregate percentage
of marks. The stance of the appellants that the
respondent has not secured requisite percentage of
marks is fallacious as such a view runs counter to the
declaration of different competent authorities supported
by the decisions of the Courts.
7. It is pertinent at this juncture to have discussion on a
Resolution of the Government of Odisha in School and
Mass Education Department bearing No. 23395-VIII-(B)-
SME-(X)-231/2014/SME, dated 27.10.2014, dissection
of which would depict as follows:
The S&ME Department have prescribed the common
qualification of Hindi Teachers in Government, Fully
Aided and Block Grant High Schools vide Resolution No.
3424, dated the 18th February, 2008, No. 7685, dated
12th May, 2009, No. 6552, dated 29.03.2011 and
Addendum No. 25114/SME, dated 03.10.2012.
In spite of the above common qualification in Hindi are not
available in the State as a result large numbers of posts
of Hindi Teachers are lying vacant in such institutions.
Now, therefore, the Government after careful
consideration of the matter have decided to prescribe the
qualification of Hindi Teachers in the following order of
preference for providing quality and better education to
the students.
Bachelor‟s degree from a recognized University with Hindi
as one the elective subject with minimum 50% marks in
aggregate (45% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates)
or
with Rastrabhasa Ratna from Rastrabhasa Prachar
Samiti, Wardha or with Sastri from Orissa
Rastrabhasa Parisada, Puri
or
with Snataka (Acquired by June-2005, the date up to
which the temporary recognition has been granted) from
Hindi Sikshaya Samiti, Orissa, Cuttack
or
an equivalent degree from a recognized institution with at
least 50% marks in aggregate (45% for
SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates and Hindi Sikshyan
Parangat from Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra/B.H.Ed (a
course prescribed by NCTE) from a Institution recognized
by NCTE and affiliated to a recognized university/B.Ed.
in Hindi (a course prescribed by NCTE) from Dakhin
Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras, a institution
recognized by NCTE and affiliated to a recognized
university,
OR
Bachelor‟s Degree with Hindi as one of the optional/Hons.
subject with 50% of marks in aggregate (45% for
SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) from a recognized
University and MA. in Hindi with minimum 50% marks in
aggregate from a recognized University.
The untrained candidates shall have to undergo the
required training within a stipulated period as decided by
Govt. from time to time.
The S&ME Deptt. Resolution No. 6552/SME, dated
29.03.2011 is modified to the above extent.
This will come into force with immediate effect.
7.1. Ordinarily, the words „and‟ and „or‟ are interpreted in a
conjunctive and disjunctive manner. Wherever statutory
provisions contained the word „and‟, it connotes a
conjunctive aspect. If different situations and/or
eventualities are added with the word „and‟, it normally
be construed as the situation and/or eventualities which
must co-exist.
7.2. The word „and‟ is commonly used to bind two situations
and/or eventualities, and therefore, an interpretation
other than what is commonly understood is only
possible if it frustrates the intention and the object for
which the said Act was enacted or the subordinate
legislation is framed. For such reason, at times the word
„and‟ and „or‟ are inter-changeable depending upon the
intention of the Legislature in tune with the object and
purpose, for which it is so legislated.
7.3. In the case of CIT Vrs. Puthu Thotam Estates (1943)
Limited, (1981) 127 ITR 481 (Mad), it has been observed
as follows:
"The circumstances under which the word "and" may be
construed as "or" and vice versa should be somewhat rare.
Otherwise, if the two are taken to be interchangeable terms,
then it would result in Parliament throwing into the statute
the two expressions indiscriminately and leave them to the
courts to sort out the meaning. In ordinary usage „„and‟‟ in
conjunctive and „„or‟‟ is disjunctive, but to carry out the
intention of the legislature it is sometimes possible to take
"and" for "or" and vice versa. But such occasions should be
rare and should only be to avoid absurd consequences that
would follow if the words are taken in their literal
meaning."
7.4. It is a well-established principle of statutory
interpretation that the word "or" is normally disjunctive
and the word "and" is normally conjunctive. Both of
them can be read as vice-versa, but that interpretation is
adopted only where the intention of the legislature is
manifest. Where provision is clear and unambiguous the
word „or‟ cannot be read as „and‟ by applying the
principle of reading down. But if the literal reading of the
words produces an unintelligible or absurd result „and‟
may be read for „or‟ and „or‟ for „and‟ even though the
result of so modifying the words is less favourable to the
subject provided that the intention of the Legislature is
otherwise quite clear. Conversely if reading of „and‟ and
„or‟ produces grammatical distortion and makes no
sense of the portion following „and‟, „or‟ cannot be read in
place of „and‟. The alternatives joined by „or‟ need not
always be mutually exclusive. [Central Council for
Research in Ayurvedic Sciences Vrs. Bikartan Das, (2023)
11 SCR 731 = 2023 INSC 733; State of Bombay Vrs. RMD
Chamarbaugwala, (1957) 1 SCR 874; J. Jayalalitha Vrs.
Union of India, (1999) 5 SCC 138; Mazagaon Dock Ltd.
Vrs. CIT & Excess Profits Tax, (1959) 1 SCR 848; Spentex
Industries Ltd. Vrs. CCE, (2015) 11 SCR 487].
7.5. In Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Product Vrs. Union of
India, (2000) 1 SCC 426 = AIR 2000 SC 314, it has been
held that „or‟ in its natural sense denotes an „alternative‟
and is not read as „substitutive‟. In Green Vrs. Premier
Glynrhonwy State Co., (1928) I KB 561, it has been held
that „or‟ does not generally mean „and‟ and „and‟ does not
generally mean „or‟. The same view has also been taken
in Nasiruddin Vrs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
(1975) 2 SCC 671 = AIR 1976 SC 331 and Municipal
Corporation of Delhi Vrs. Tek Chand Bhatia, (1980) 1 SCC
158 = AIR 1980 SC 360 and State (Delhi Administration)
Vrs. Puran Mal (1985) 2 SCC 589 = AIR 1985 SC 741. In
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Vrs. Henderson Bros.,
(1888) 13 AC 595, it has been held that as pointed out
by LORD HALSBURY the reading of „or‟ and „and‟ is not to
be resorted to, "unless some other part of the same
statute or the clear intention of it requires that to be
done". In Union of India Vrs. Rabinder Singh, (2012) 12
SCC 787, the Supreme Court held that where provision
is clear and unambiguous the word „or‟ cannot be read
as „and‟ by applying the principle of reading down.
7.6. In Kamta Prasad Aggarwal Vrs. Executive Engineer,
Ballabhgarh, AIR 1974 SC 685, it has been held that
depending upon the context, „or‟ may be read as „and‟
but the Court would not do it unless it is so obliged
because „or‟ does not generally mean „and‟ and „and‟ does
not generally mean „or‟.
7.7. Bearing in mind such golden rules of construction, it
may not be apposite to gainsay that for the post of Hindi
Teacher, "an applicant must have passed Bachelor
Degree Examination from a recognised University with
Hindi as one of the elective subject" or "with
Rastrabhasha Ratna from Rastrabhasha Prachar Samiti,
Wardha" or "with Sastri from Odisha Rastrabhasa
Parisad, Puri". As the respondent herein has the
Bachelor‟s Degree as also the qualification of "Sastri",
which has been notified as equivalent to +3/B.A., having
more than 45% or even 50% marks in aggregate, as
elaborately discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, there
is no iota of doubt in mind that the Collector, Angul
while disposing of the representation of the respondent
in his Order dated 20.01.2023 has not considered the
matrix of fact in proper perspective.
7.8. Necessary corollary of the aforesaid would be that,
i. the respondent has passed B.A. Degree with 36%
marks in aggregate;
ii. in addition thereto, he has qualification of
"Rastrabhasa Sastri", which is treated equivalent to
+3/Bachelor‟s Degree with 63.75% marks in
aggregate (more than 45%, or even more than
50%);
iii. as per Resolution dated 27.10.2014 read with
terms of the Advertisement(s), untrained
candidates could also apply for the post of Hindi
Teacher, but they would have to undergo required
training within the timeline specified by the
Government.
Ergo, the respondent could not be debarred from being
considered for the post of Hindi Teacher (Contractual) on
the grounds mentioned in the Office Order dated
20.01.2023 of the Collector, Angul purported to have
been passed in pursuance of Order dated 18.10.2022
passed in WPC (OAC) No.3094 of 2017.
Position as to cases referred to in the context of granting
similar benefit as that is made in the writ petition:
8. Though the matters in Nihar Ranjan Sarangi (supra) and
Satyabrata Nayak and others Vrs. State of Odisha and
others, (supra), are sub judice before the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India and Division Bench of this Court
respectively, during course of hearing of present matter,
it was brought to the notice at the Bar that a Division
Bench of this Court in identical fact-situation, being
State of Odisha Vrs. Aparna Sinha, W.P.(C) No.10616 of
2020, while disposing of the matter, passed the following
Order on 07.09.2020:
"Heard Mr. Dipti Ranjan Mohapatra, learned
Standing Counsel for the School and Mass
Education Department for the petitioners and Mr.
Goutam Mishra, learned Senior Advocate along with
learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 through
Video Conferencing mode.
2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order
dated 24.05.2019 (Annexure-1) passed by the
learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.1090 of 2016
wherein learned Tribunal while disposing of the
Original Application, directed the State authorities
(the present petitioners) to give appointment to the
opposite party No.1-Aparna Sinha in the post of
Contractual Hindi Teacher pursuant to the
Resolution dated 27.10.2014 of the Government of
Odisha in School and Mass Education Department
within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of copy of the said order.
3. Guidelines were issued for recruitment procedure of
teaching staff in Government Secondary Schools.
Educational qualification for appointment to the post
of Hindi Teacher has been prescribed at Para-3(f) of
the said resolution, which is as follows:
„3. Educational Qualification
***
(f) Hindi Teacher-Bachelor‟s degree from a
recognized University with Hindi as one of the
elective subject with minimum 50% marks in
aggregate (45% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC
candidates) or with Restrabhasa Ratna from
Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti, Wardha or with
Sastri from Orissa Rastrabhasa Parisada, Puri
or with Snataka (Acquired by June-2005, the
date up to which the temporary recognition has
been granted) from Hindi Sikshaya Samiti,
Orissa, Cuttack or an equivalent degree from a
recognized institution with at least 50% marks
in aggregate (45% for SC/ST/PH/PBC/SEBC
candidates) and Hindi Sikshyan Parangat from
Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra/B/H/Ed. (a
course prescribed by NCTE) from a Institution
recognized by NCTE and affiliated to a
recognized university/B.Ed. in Hindi (a course
prescribed by NCTE) from Dakhin Bharat Hindi
Prachar Sabha, Madras, a institution
recognized by NCTE and affiliated to a
recognized university.
OR
Bachelor‟s degree with Hindi as one of the
optional Hons subject with minimum 50% of
marks in aggregate (45% for
SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) and M.A.
in Hindi with minimum 50% marks in
aggregate from a recognized university.
(The untrained candidates shall have to
undergo required training within the timeline
as prescribed by Govt.)‟
4. Though initially Mr. Mohapartra, leaned Standing
Counsel submits that the petitioner did not have
requisite qualification for being appointed as a
contractual Hindi Teacher, but being confronted with
the submissions made by Mr. G. Mishra, learned
Senior Advocate for the opposite party No.1, he
conceded that the opposite party no.1 had the
requisite qualification for being appointed as
contractual Hindi Teacher.
5. In order to ascertain the correctness of the
contentions of Mr. G. Mishra learned Senior
Advocate to the effect that persons below the
opposite party No.1 in the merit list were given
appointment ignoring case of opposite party no.1,
this Court vide order dated 27.08.2020 passed the
following order:
„As directed earlier, learned Standing Counsel for
School, and Mass Education Department shall
submit the records regarding selection of candidates
having requisite qualification and vacancy of post
before the Court Master by 01.09.2020.
Put up this case on 07.09.2020.‟
5.1 Accordingly, Mr. Mohapatra, learned Standing
Counsel produced the record of selection of
candidates for the posts of contractual Hindi Teacher
in Government High School for the year 2014-15 in
four volumes today in Court.
6. On verification of record, it appears that in the new
additional merit list name of the opposite party no.1
appears at Sl. No.66 and in total has secured
220.6778 marks in the merit list. It is submitted by
Mr. Mohapatra that no candidate securing lesser
mark than the petitioner has been appointed. He,
however, submits that there is vacancy and the
opposite party No.1 can be appointed accordingly.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court, without going
into details of the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties, directs that the opposite
party No.1 be appointed in the post of contractual
Hindi Teacher pursuant to the Government of Odisha
in School and Mass Education Department
Resolution dated 27.10.2014 within a period of three
months hence.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of."
8.1. Said Order dated 07.09.2020 in State of Odisha Vrs.
Aparna Sinha (supra) was challenged before the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India in Petition(s) for Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No(s).195 of 2021, wherein the following
Order was passed on 20.01.2021:
"In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that it
is not a fit case to be entertained under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petitions are
dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed
of."
8.2. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed
reliance on the interpretation of eligibility of the
candidate applying for Hindi Teacher (Contractual) vis-à-
vis educational qualification as set forth in Smrutirekha
Biswal Vrs. State of Odisha, WPC (OAC) No.1376 of 2017,
disposed of vide Judgment dated 27.01.2023. It is stated
that the Single Bench of this Court considered "Sastri"
from Odisha Rastrabhasa Parisad as equivalent to B.A.
basing on declaration made by the Utkal University and
Government of India. It is asserted that the Government
of Odisha has not carried the above matter further
before the higher fora. Therefore, the learned counsel Sri
Sarat Chandra Mekap, vociferously urged to extend the
similar benefit to the respondent.
Conclusion:
9. From the factual narration discernible from record, more
particularly the percentage of marks secured with
respect to qualifications as depicted in tabular form in
the Order dated 20.01.2023 of the Collector, Angul,
clinches that the respondent has secured 36% marks in
Bachelor of Arts and 63.75% marks in "Rastrabhasha
Sastri" (which is treated equivalent to B.A.). In the wake
of discussions made supra, it is, thus, unambiguous
that "Sastri" qualification is equivalent to Bachelor‟s
Degree (+3/B.A.). This apart, the respondent, a
candidate in the category of Scheduled Caste, has
secured more than 45% marks in Sastri Examination.
The reasons for rejection of representation of the
respondent cannot, thus, be countenanced.
9.1. Bearing in mind given legal perspective with respect to
treatment of "Sastri" qualification as equivalent to
+3/B.A. (Bacholor‟s Degree) and being not oblivious to
the situation as reflected in Resolution of the
Government of Odisha in School and Mass Education
Department bearing No. 23395-VIII-(B)-SME-(X)-
231/2014/SME, dated 27.10.2014, indicating "In spite
of the above common qualification in Hindi are not
available in the State as a result large numbers of posts
of Hindi Teachers are lying vacant in such institutions",
this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the approach
of the learned Single Judge in passing Order dated
28.11.2024 in W.P.(C) No.24577 of 2023.
9.2. Being not able to show any perversity in factual matrix,
as narrated in the impugned order of the learned Single
Judge, by the learned Additional Government Advocate,
this Court finds no warrant to show intervention in the
impugned Order of the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, for the discussions made and reasons
ascribed herein above the order of the learned Single
Judge is upheld.
10. In the result, the writ appeal, sans merit, stands
dismissed with no order as to costs. All pending
interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed
of.
I agree.
(HARISH TANDON) (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-Charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH
COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 14-Oct-2025 15:25:53
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 14th October, 2025//Aswini/Laxmikant
