Candidates should not face denial of appointment due to procedural errors related to institutional documentation, especially when they have qualified based on merit.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking the following relief:-

“It is, therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ Petition, issue notice to Opp. Parties and thereby directing to file a show cause and if no show cause is filed/or insufficient cause has been shown and after hearing from both parties, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or any other suitable forms thereby quashing Letter No.4A-02- 2019-II, 4223, dt.25.10.2019 under Annexure-9 for the interest of justice.

And further directed to republish the merit list and incorporating the name of the petitioner.

And pass any other order(s)/direction(s) as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper for the interest of justice

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall every pray.”

2. Sans unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement/notification issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha on 23.02.2019 for recruitment to the post of Contractual Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) in Government schools of the State, the petitioner having the necessary qualification applied for the same through online mode. The number of vacancies so advertised was 1828. She appeared in the online competitive examination held on the date fixed. The provisional result of such examination was published wherein the petitioner was found to have qualified being placed at Serial No.1662. The said list was published on 14.8.2019. By notice dated 28.08.2019, the candidates were called upon to submit the documents on 05.09.2019 before the District Education Officer, Cuttack for verification. After such verification, two lists were published under notice dated 21.09.2019 being draft common merit list and draft reject list. The candidates were allowed to file their objections in the prescribed format between 23.09.2019 and 26.09.2019. The petitioner’s name was reflected at Serial No.196 of the draft reject list citing the reason that her name differs in the B.A. and B.Ed. certificates and NCTE wanting (2013- 14). The petitioner’s name being ‘Suptimayee’ was wrongly reflected as ‘Suprimayee’ in the mark list and provisional certificate of B.Ed. course. Accordingly, the petitioner got the certificate corrected and submitted the same in compliance to the objection raised. However, in the provisional selection list issued on 25.10.2019, the petitioner’s name was absent. It is stated that the petitioner possesses the requisite qualification and had also duly qualified in the online test for which she was eligible for appointment. But because of wrong mentioning of her name in the B.Ed. certificate, she was deprived. On such facts, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the relief as stated hereinbefore.

3. Counter affidavit is filed by the District Education Officer (opposite party no. 3). It is stated that the petitioner’s candidature was rejected on the ground of mismatch of her name in B.Ed. and B.A. certificates and for want of NCTE certificate. Since the requirement is for the candidate to produce certificate of the equivalence and the certificate of recognition of NCTE and affiliation certificate in case of candidates passing Bachelor Degree or B.Ed. from other States, it was necessary for the petitioner to have produced the s