The judgment established the principle that the basic qualification requirements, along with additional qualifications, must be met for eligibility for a specific position. It also clarified the prospective nature of guidelines in relation to advertisements.

JUDGMENT :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

In the present application, the petitioner prays for quashment of the Reject List under Annexure-5 on the ground that the same is contrary to the guidelines of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) dated 12.11.2014 and whereby, his candidature for the post of Hindi Teacher (Contractual) was rejected.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

Pursuant to an advertisement published by the Director Secondary Education, Odisha (opposite party no.2) on 23.10.2014 and 13.01.2015 inviting applications for the posts of Teachers in several disciplines as per district-wise vacancies, the petitioner submitted his candidature in respect of Cuttack district enclosing all the required documents. It is stated that 29 posts meant for Hindi Teachers were to be filled up for Cuttack district. As per the draft list of applicants for engagement of Contract Teacher in Government High Schools published by the opposite party no.2 (Annexure-4), the petitioner’s name was placed at serial no. 37. He was asked to appear in between 06.02.2016 and 10.02.2016 for verification of his testimonials. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared, whereby his documents pertaining to educational qualification were verified. However, his candidature was rejected subsequently as per Reject List published under Annexure-5 on the ground that he had not secured 50% marks in +3 examination. It is the petitioner’s case that he had submitted an objection indicating that since he has 57% marks in M.A. (Hindi) and 37% marks in graduation, his M.A. marks may be considered instead of graduation marks as per NCTE Rules and Regulations. According to the petitioner, as per the guidelines fixed by the NCTE in its notification dated 12.11.2014, the minimum qualification of a person is either graduate or postgraduate from a recognized university with at least 50% marks in either graduation or post-graduation. The said resolution is enclosed as Annexure-7. According to the petitioner, the guidelines fixed by the State Government in its resolution dated 27.10.2014 (Annexure-8) being contrary to the guidelines fixed by the NCTE, is not sustainable in the eye of law. Since the petitioner has secured more than 50% of marks in the post-graduation level, rejection of his candidature by considering his marks at graduation level is contrary to the guidelines of NCTE.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the District Education Officer, Cuttack (opposite party no.4) mainly referring to the resolution dated 27.10.2014 as per which, the qualification for the post of Hindi Teacher is Bachelor’s degree with Hindi as one of the elective subjects with minimum 50 % marks in aggregate. It is stated that the petitioner did not possess the requisite percentage of marks and hence, his candidature was rightly not accepted. Referring to the guidelines issued by the NCTE, it is stated that even as per the same, the minimum qualification is 50% marks in graduate/post-graduate and Bachelor of Education. It is also submitted that the advertisement being for the year 2014-15, the eligible candidates have been selected and have also been engaged and as such, there is no vacancy available at present.

4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter again harping upon the guidelines of the NCTE to state that the requirement of 50% marks applies either to graduate or post graduate level. Moreover, the petitioner also has Sastri qualification securing 54% marks from Orissa Rastrabhasa Parishad, which is equivalent to graduation (+3) as per order dated 31.07.2012 of Utkal University (Annexure-11). The petitioner has also relied upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nihar Ranjan Sarangi vs. State of Odisha (WPC(OAC) No. 922 of 2016) to contend that the ratio of the same squarely applies to him.

5. The opposite party no.4 again filed a reply to the rejoinder stating that as per the qualification prescribed in the advertisement vide Clause-3(f),