The court affirmed a notional regularization of service aligned with peers, emphasizing fair treatment and prior precedents while restricting monetary benefits.

Judgment :

A.K. Mohapatra, J. :

1. By filing the present writ petition the Petitioner has sought for the following relief;

“Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed;

And

(A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued quashing the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Collector, Jajpur under Annexure:5 and necessary direction may be made to the opposite parties to treat the petitioner as Sikshya Sahayak on notional basis from 2006/2007 and her services may be regularized from 2012/2013 instead of 24.07.2021 and similar benefit may be granted to the petitioner like that of other Sikshya Sahayks whose services were regularized by virtue of order dated 09.04.2013 under Annexure:3 with all consequential service and financial benefits, within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court;

(B) And any other order orders or direction / directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner;”

2. Heard Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. S.K. Parhi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the pleadings of the respective parties as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The factual background of the present case in short is that an advertisement was floated on 14.10.2006 to fill up the vacant posts of Sikshya Sahayaks in different districts of the State of Odisha including the district of Jajpur. The Petitioner, along with many other eligible candidates, submitted their candidature to be considered for appointment to the post of Sikshya Sahayaks in the year 2006. The pleadings in the writ petition further reveals that the final select list was prepared on 16.12.2006. It appears that the candidature of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that she had passed the Junior Educator Course. Although the same is claimed to be equivalent to the C.T. Course, however, the same was not considered by the recruiting authorities. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.14415 of 2006, which was disposed of on 27.08.2008, directing the Petitioner to submit a representation before the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jajpur for consideration of her candidature to be appointed as Sikshya Sahayak. Such representation of the Petitioner was rejected by the Collector on the ground that the Petitioner is having the certificate of Junior Educator Course for which she was found not eligible for the post of Sikshya Sahayak.

4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of her representation by the Collector, Jajpur, the Petitioner once again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18985 of 2008. Again a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.08.2013 disposed of the writ petition holding that the Petitioner is eligible to be considered for appointment as Sikshya Sahayak and that the certificate acquired by the Petitioner is equivalent to C.T. Course, and accordingly, the Opposite Party No.5 in that writ petition was directed to consider the case of the Petitioner and to accept the application of the Petitioner and to further process her application pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.10.2006. The learned coordinate bench further directed that in the event it is found that the last candidate in unreserved women category, who has been appointed against a Matric C.T. post, has obtained less marks than the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.5 shall give appointment to the Petitioner as Sikshya Sahayak, if there are no other legal impediments. The order dated 16.08.2013