[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Board Of Secondary Education vs Chandrajit Mohanty And Others on 15 January, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. NO.1820 OF 2025
In the matter of an appeal under Section 10 of letter Patent of
Patna High Court read with Article 4 of Orissa High Court Order,
1948 from the order dated 17.01.2024 passed by learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) No.29713 of 2011.
--------------
Board of Secondary Education, .... Appellants
Orissa and another
-versus-
Chandrajit Mohanty and others
.... Respondents
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Appellants - Mr. S.S. Rao, Sr. Advocate
assisted by M/s. A.A. Mishra, B.K.
Mohanty, Advocates
For Respondents - Mr. S. Patra, Advocate
assisted by M/s. S. Rath, A. Rout,
K.T. Patra, Advocates
[Respondent No.1]
-----------
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 15.01.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1 of 5
PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT,J.
Respondent No.1 had filed WP(C) No. 29713 of 2011 calling
in question Appellant-Board's denial of permission to appear at the
C.T. Examination 2012. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated
17.01.2024, allowed the petition.
2. The operative portion of the impugned order, i.e., Para-7.1
reads as under:
".1. This Court after going through the communication issued
on 24.07.1998 under Annexure-A/1 series, is of the view that
since by the time such a letter was issued, Petitioner had
already acquired HSC qualification from Andhra University in
the month of March, 1989, the stipulation contained in in the
letter under Annexure-A/1 series cannot be made applicable to
the case of the Petitioner. Therefore, this Court while upholding
the equivalency of the certificate issued under Annexure-1 as
equivalent to the HSC qualification of BSE, Odisha, is inclined
to quash the communication issued by the Board under
Annexure-13 and further letter issued under Annexure-13/A.
While quashing communications dtd.16.08.2011 under
Annexure-13 and decision taken on 22.12.2014 under
Annexure-13/A, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to publish
the result of the Distance Education Programme (C.T.)
Examination 2013, which Petitioner has undertaken in terms of
the order passed by this Court on 30.04.2013 within a period of
two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order."
3. Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Appellant-
Board of Secondary Education, Odisha vehemently submits that for
taking C.T. Examination, a pass in HSC Examination conducted by
the Board itself is a sine qua non whereas Respondent No.1 although
had passed in HSC Examination, the said Examination was
conducted not by the Board of Odisha but of Andhra Pradesh and
therefore, learned Single Judge erred in approximating Respondent's
HSC result to that of HSC Examination conducted by Odisha Board.
Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 opposes the
appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and
the reasons on which it has been constructed.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the appeal papers, this Court declines indulgence in the intra-
court appeal broadly agreeing with the view of learned Single Judge.
Firstly, the impugned order has brought about a just result and
therefore, regardless of arguable infirmity therein, the interference at
the hands of this Court is not warranted.
5. Admittedly, Respondent No.1 secured HSC Certificate on
07.06.1989 from a College at Berhampur in Odisha, although the said
College was affiliated to Andhra University. Throughout he studied
in Odia medium only. On the basis of said certificate, Respondent
No.1 prosecuted higher studies and passed +2 Examination in August
1991, +3 Arts Examination in September, 1995 and thereafter
secured PG qualification in Odia from Berhampur University. That
being the position, it is too late in the day for the Board to say that
Respondent No.1's HSC Certificate is not equal to HSC Certificates
that are issued by the Odisha Board. Case of the Respondent No.1 in
a sense is one of factum valet.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 is right in
contending that the Appellant-Board vide Circular No.944(Syllabus)
dated 24.07.1998 has equated HSC Examination of other Boards with
that of Odisha Board up to 20.09.1988. If that be so, no reason is
forthcoming from the Circular as to why for the HSC Examinations
of Andhra Pradesh held subsequently cannot be equated to HSC of
the Odisha Board. Therefore, the cut-off date becomes fictional
attracting rule against equality. Had the Board given full particulars
of the Syllabus for HSC Examination of Odisha, which would differ
from that prescribed by Andhra Pradesh Board, arguably there could
be a case for the Appellants.
7. Learned Senior Advocate-Mr. Rao appearing for the Appellant-
Board expresses apprehension that the judgment in this case has some
abuse potential, inasmuch as it may be cited as a precedent in other
cases and that would create difficulty. We make it clear that this
judgment having been rendered in a peculiar fact matrix, does not have
precedential elements and therefore, obviously cannot be cited as a
binding precedent in other cases.
In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid of
merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs
having been made easy. Appellants shall implement the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge within a period of
four weeks and report compliance to the Registrar General of
this Court within one week next following, failing which they
run the risk of action for contempt.
We copy of the judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 15th day of January 2026 /Madhusmita
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
