B.Ed. (Special) qualification recognized by NCTE is equivalent to B.Ed. General, ensuring equal opportunity for candidates with disabilities in educational recruitment processes.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

1. Petitioner, who was in the fray of selection for the post of TGT (Arts) with the nomenclature of Initial Appointee Teacher, having been decandidatured on the ground that his B.Ed. (Special) qualification does not satisfy the B.Ed. General qualification prescribed by the Advertisement dated 23.12.2021 at Annexure-1 more particularly Caluse-5B, has knocked at the doors of the Writ Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question of equivalence of B.Ed. (Special) to B.Ed. General is no longer res integra, in view of decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.16508 of 2024 between Anakar Swain v. State of Odisha disposed off vide judgment dated 28.10.2025. He also presses into service the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.37449 of 2023 between Samarendra Panda v. State of Odisha disposed off on 16.12.2025.

3. Learned ASC appearing for the OPs vehemently opposes the petition contending that the educational qualification is specifically prescribed in the Advertisement in question and the authorities having examined all aspects of the matter have come to a fair decision that the petitioner’s qualification does not answer the prescribed qualification and therefore, the Writ Court should loathe to interfere.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter agreeing with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the question is no longer res integra. This Court in Anakar Swain (supra) and Samarendra Panda (supra) has specifically held that B.Ed. (Special) secured by a candidate in a course recognized by NCTE would be equivalent to B.Ed. General. That being the position, contra contention of learned AGA does not merit acceptance.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also rightly banks upon a decision of Rajasthan High Court in Rajendra Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan , 2003 LAB.I.C. 1791, wherein Paragraph-7 reads as under:

“In my considered opinion, when the petitioner No.1 has passed the B.Ed. Special (Blind) degree course and the qualification for the post of Teacher Gr. III was that a candidate should have qualification of B.Ed. and furthermore. Annex. 4 Certificate issued by the University reveals that apart from B.Ed. Special (Blind) degree, the petitioner No.1 has also studied the papers pertaining to the B.Ed. general course, therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner No.1 was not having a requisite qualification for the post of Teacher Gr. III.”

6. There is another aspect to the matter: petitioner is a Person with Disability. candidate having vision impairment. As many as 33 posts have been reserved for vision impairment candidates. Counsel for the petitioner submits that only 26 have been filled up leaving 7 to continue to be vacant. In considering claim of candidates of the kind, the State should be bit lenient so that the Parliamentary purpose enacted in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 would be served. Petitioner has scored 82.9450915 as is reflected in Annexure-5 issued by Directorate of Secondary Education. Thus, apparently with all impairment he is absolutely meritorious and the B.Ed. (Special) qualification acquired by him satisfies requirement of recruitment process.

In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 at Annexure-10. A Writ of Mandamus issues to OP No.2 to consider candidature of the petitio