Court upheld that long-term employees cannot be denied regularization based on initial qualification discrepancies, emphasizing experience over rigid educational requirements.

Judgment :

DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J

Petitioner, who has suffered order dated 18.04.2024 at the hands of Director of Secondary Education, Odisha at Annexure-8 rejecting his claim for regularization of service, is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court seeking its invalidation coupled with a direction for regularization.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only ground in the impugned order for denying regularization is that his client lacks the educational qualification, when he does not. He tells that the educational qualification prescribed in the Advertisement at Annexure-1 is satisfied by the petitioner and therefore, on that sole ground alone, petition needs to be allowed. Secondly, he presses into service the Delhi High Court Judgment in Social Justice, A Civil Rights Group v. Government of N.C.T. Delhi , [WP(C) No.677 of 2008] decided on 16.09.2009 to the effect that a degree in Special Education is equal to a degree in General Education. In other words, B.Ed. (SE) approximates to B.Ed. (GE). Thirdly, he presses into service a decision of Apex Court in Bhagawati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development , AIR 1990 SC 371 to support his contention that once in terms of prescribed qualification, a candidate is appointed in due selection process, it is not open to the Appointing Authority to contend that he lacked educational qualification for the purpose of service benefits such as regularization, etc. especially, when his services have been drawn for a long period after the irregular entry.

3. Learned AGA Mr. Lenka, drawing attention of the Court to the counter, vehemently contends that the qualification acquired by the petitioner does not answer the prescription in the Advertisement at Annexure-1; in the absence of requisite qualification, nobody can claim appointment, much less the regularization; education goes to the root of matter when recruitment process is undertaken and therefore, cannot be ignored. He also loudly reads out certain other contentions that have been taken up in his pleadings.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

4.1. Petitioner came to be appointed to the position in question with effect from 01.07.2011 having undergone the selection process in terms of Advertisement dated 20.11.2009 at Annexure-1. Clause 2(d) under the Educational Column of the said Advertisement reads as under:

“2(d) As regards the eligibility of candidates for engagement of contractual teachers, he/she must have obtained Bachelor’s Degree in Arts, Science along with a degree of Bachelor’s of Education from a recognized University for being considered as Trained Graduate Teacher….”

After examining the documents, the Selecting Body came to the conclusion that the petitioner was qualified for appointment. Accordingly, select list was prepared followed by the issuance of appointment order. Since then, years have lapsed and there is absolutely no complaint whatsoever about the quantitative & qualitative discharge of his duties all through. Therefore, the contention of learned AGA Mr. Lenka that the petitioner lacks the requisite educational qualification is liable to be rejected.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is more than justified in contending that the qualifications which his client does possess answer the requirement of Advertisement; he is right in placing reliance on the Delhi High Court judgment supra which is structured on the basis of affidavit filed by the Member Secretary of Rehabilitation Council of India wherein paragraphs 12 & 14 read as under:

“12. It is submitted that B.Ed. Special Education is a degree p