The recognition of qualifications by an Equivalence Committee is subject to the approval of the relevant authority, and legitimate expectation for appointment can arise from a valid selection process.

JUDGMENT :

Indrajit Mahanty, J. - The Appellant-Sri Jagdish Kumar Tripathy in this appeal has sought to challenge the Judgment and Order Dated 10.1.2008 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 15742 of 2006, whereby, the writ application filed by the present Respondent No. 6 came to be allowed with the direction to consider the candidature of Respondent No. S for appointment as Multi Purpose Assistant (Gram Rojagar Sevak) in Baharpur Gram Panchayat under Dharakot Block.

2. Mr. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that an advertisement was published by the Collector, Ganjam calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Multi Purpose Assistant (Gram Rojagar Sevak) and it was stipulated therein that a candidate must have passed the 10+2 examination and preference would be given to Commerce stream having computer proficiency of 'O' Level with use of Oriya language in computer. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that pursuant to the said advertisement, an interview was hold for assessment of all the applications. The Appellant came to be selected in the said post under Annexure-2 dated 15.12.2006. The application of the Respondent No. 6 came to be rejected by the State Government on the ground that Respondent No. 6 did not possess the requisite qualification as stipulated in the advertisement.

3. Respondent No. 6 filed. W.P. (C) No. 15742 of 2006 before the High Court and claimed that he had passed "Upasashtri" examination conducted by Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya and the certificate to that effect has annexed as Annexure-B/6 to the present appeal issued by the said University, indicating that the Respondent No. 6 (Writ Petitioner) had been awarded "Upashastri" and in the English version of the said certificate, the said diploma is described as "Higher Secondary Examination Certificate (+2 Arts)". The Writ Petitioner, therefore, being aggrieved by the rejection of his application form, challenged the selection process on the ground that he had been ousted from consideration, even though, he possessed the necessary educational qualification. Apart from passing 'Upashastri', the Petitioner had also graduated from Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya and had been awarded Sashtri/Bachelor of Arts degree and had thereafter passed the LL.B. examination conducted by the Berhampur University. Apart from it, the Petitioner also satisfies the requirements of the knowledge of computer, i.e. Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Science (PGDCS).

4. It appears that a counter affidavit was filed to the writ application by the State and in the said counter affidavit, the stand of the Collector was that although the Petitioner has passed 'Upashastri', the advertisement had invited applications only from intending candidates having 10+2 qualification and the said advertisement did not contemplate/permit consideration of equivalent qualification. The Collector took the stand that the Petitioner's contention that he had passed +2 examination from Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya could not be accepted since, the said Institution does not offer any such examination and further, since the advertisement and terms contained therein, did not make it possible to entertain applications of the candidates having equivalent qualification. Therefore, the application of the Petitioner had been rejected due to want of requisite qualification.

Apart from the above, in the writ application, the present Appellant who is Opposite Party No. 5 in the writ application had raised a contention that the Upashastri examination conducted by Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, was not equivalent to +2 examination of the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa. In so far as the notification issued by the Council of Higher Secondary Education Orissa dated 18th February, 1986 is concerned (Annexure-9 to the writ application and Annexure-4 to the present appeal), the Opposite Pa