J U D G M E N T

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing and judgment: 21^st March, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.

1. Mrs. Biswal, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant and submits, her client had applied to be selected as Hindi Teacher pursuant to advertisement dated 27^th October, 2014. His candidature was rejected for the third time, compelling him to again move this Court by W.P.(C) no.38485 of 2020, disposed of on order dated 5^th January, 2021. Direction made in said order is reproduced below.

“Considering the submissions made by the parties, this Writ Petition stands disposed of with a direction to the O.Ps.1 to 3 to consider the representation at the instance of petitioner vide Annexure-7 and take a lawful decision in the matter taking into account the grounds stated in the Writ Petition so also the decision in the case of State of Odisha Vrs.

Ranjita Samal, (W.P.(C) No.3132 of 2018).”

2. Directorate of Secondary Education, Odisha by office order dated 3^rd November, 2021 rejected her client’s representation on purported reasons given in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the order, reproduced below.

“9. On verification of the documents of the petitioner it is seen that, the petitioner does not have any of the training qualification as prescribed for the post of Hindi Teachers in the advertisement 2014-15 i.e. Hindi Sikshyan Parangat/B.H.Ed./B.Ed in Hindi from Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras. He had passed H.T.T.C. (Hindi Teacher’s Training Certificate) examination which is not the prescribed training qualification as per advertisement.

10. Thus, even if his Shastri (Sanskrit) qualification is accepted in place of Bachelor Degree as per order passed in O.A. No.2954 (C) of 2015 & batch cases and confirmed by Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.3132/2018 State of Odisha Vs. Ranjita Samal, still he does not become eligible as he does not have the training qualification as prescribed in the advertisement.”

(emphasis supplied)

Her client once again moved the writ Court. By impugned order dated 26^th September, 2023 the writ petition stood dismissed. Her client has preferred this appeal.

3. Mrs. Biswal submits, the learned single Judge erred on facts and in law. Her client had equivalent qualification on training. The learned Judge failed to appreciate the fact. Paragraph 7 from impugned order is reproduced below.

“7. After going through the materials placed by the learned counsel appearing for the Parties, it is the view of this Court that the Petitioner since does not have the required training qualification as provided in the Resolution dtd.27.10.2014 under Annexure-3 and no cogent materials having been produced by the Petitioner showing that he does have the required training qualification, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dtd.03.11.2021 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-6. This Court is also not inclined to interfere as the recruitment is of the year 2014-15 and in the meantime the selection process has already been completed as contended in the bar. Not only that no interim order was ever passed protecting the interest of the Petitioner.

In any view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition and dismiss the same.”

4. Mrs. Biswal draws attention to requirement on eligibility in resolution dated 27^th October, 2014, pursuant to which the advertisement was issued. She submits, relevant are clauses (c) and (d) under paragraph 1 on eligibility and clause (f) under paragraph 3 on educational qualification. Relied upon clauses are reproduced below.

“1. Eligibility:-

… … …(c) Candidates having Bachelor degree in Arts/ Commerce/ Science with Bachelor degree in Education from any universities of the State or its equivalency are eligible. Regarding Universities/ Institutions of outside State, the c