Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
Prajnya Parimita Barik - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & others - Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No. 14083 of 2025
Decided On : 22-08-2025
For the Petitioner:M/s. C. Nayak & R.K. Nayak, Advocates
For the Opp. Parties :Mr. S.K. Jee, Addl. Government Advocate
The court asserted that physical disability should not artificially restrict employment opportunities, emphasizing equitable treatment within recruitment guidelines.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 and 21 - Recruitment Guidelines for Sikshya Sahayakas - Candidate with physical disability possessing OTET-I and B.Ed. qualifications improperly classified under untrained candidates due to ambiguity in guidelines - Court emphasizes the need for equitable treatment of physically handicapped individuals in employment. (Paras 1, 5.5)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Repeated litigation regarding appointment - Court stresses that prolonged legal battles should not result in denial of rightful appointments, recognizing ongoing vacancies. (Para 5.5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, qualified for teaching positions, faced rejection twice despite being certified as a physically handicapped candidate with the necessary qualifications. The impugned order dated 26.03.2025 led to the third litigation after earlier court interventions. (Paras 1, 2.1, 2.2)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner deserves due consideration and leniency under the recruitment guidelines, rejecting the implications of mutual exclusivity in examining her qualifications. (Paras 5.1, 5.2)
Issues: Whether the guidelines are mutually exclusive, and if the classification based on disability is justified. (Paras 5.2, 5.4)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that candidates should not be deprived of rights based on stricter interpretations of guidelines, and that the petitioner's prolonged legal struggles should not hinder her rights to employment. (Paras 5.3, 5.5)
Result: Writ issued quashing the impugned order, directing appointment within 8 weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks appointment as teacher despite disputes. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented from both sides on eligibility. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis validates petitioner's entitlement. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
Petitioner, an aspirant for the job of teacher, is invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction to OP Nos.3 & 4 to recommend her name under the heading of untrained applicant for ‘Sikshya Sahayakas’ and for a further direction for issuing the appointment order, after quashing the impugned order dated 26.03.2025. This is a third round of litigation, the earlier two being in WP(C) No.52 of 2015 & WP(C) No.28242 of 2023.
2. Foundational facts
2.1. Petitioner bears the qualifications, namely, Orissa Teachers Eligibility Test (OTET-I) & B.Ed. She is a 1st Class Student from Matriculation to B.Ed. Admittedly, petitioner has Physical Disability Certificate, inasmuch as she has 45% ocular disability. Pursuant to Recruitment Notification dated 11.09.2014, she had made online application for her engagement as a Sikshya Sahayak.
2.2. After the due verification, the second OP-Director prepared list of trained eligible applicants during the year 2014-15 wherein petitioner’s name figured at Sl. No.191 in the said category. However, to her dismay, her name was struck off from the category of eligible trained applicants, though she has B.Ed. qualification. The District Project Coordinator-OP No.3 brought her at Sl. No.51 in the category of untrained CT candidates. Her challenge to the same in WP(C) No.52/2015 was negatived vide order dated 04.10.2016.
2.3. Since liberty was given to the petitioner to work out her grievance before the appropriate authority, as observed in the Writ Appeal order, she made a representation dated 10.02.2017 ventilating her grievance. That too, not yielded much result in being disposed off on 20.05.2017. However, during its pendency, the Board of Secondary Education promulgated the guidelines for “Orissa Teacher Eligibility Test (OTET) 2019” pursuant to corrigendum dated 22.11.2018 relaxedly altering the norms whereunder Graduation with minimum of 50% marks coupled with the B.Ed. secured from NCTE recognized institution, would be sufficient educational qualification for appointment as a teacher for Class-I to IV, if the appointed candidate undergoes a six month bridge courses in an Elementary Education recognized by NCTE within two years of appointment.
2.4. Petitioner’s candidature having not been considered under the subject new guidelines, she filed WP(C) No.28242 of 2023 against the order dated 20.05.2017, whereby her application was rejected. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 12.02.2025, having quashed the same, remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The OP No.2, vide office order dated 26.03.2025, has again rejected her claim and that happens to be the subject matter of this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention of the Court to the ‘Handicapped Certificate’ dated 01.12.2010, tells that the petitioner is having 45% vision impairment; she is educationally fully qualified having OTET-I coupled with B.Ed.; under the General Instructions for Candidate dated 11.09.2014, petitioner’s application for engagement ought to have been considered, more particularly keeping in view Guideline Nos.2, 7 & 8; despite a direction by the Coordinate Bench, due consideration has not happened and that has resulted into duplication of the very same decision to the detriment of the petitioner and therefore, interference of this Court is eminently warranted.
4. Learned AGA, in his usual style, vehemently resists the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons in which it has been structured. He told the Court that under Guideline-2, OTET-I candidates can apply for CT category and OTET-II candidates can apply for B.Ed. category; both are mutually exclusive; the very application of th
