IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO.37449 of 2023 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

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

Samarendra Panda …. Petitioner -versus-

State of Odisha, represented …. Opposite Parties through Commissioner-Cum-

Secretary to Government, School & Mass Education Department, Bhubaneswar & Another Advocates Appeared in this case For Petitioner - M/s. K.K. Swain, S.C.D. Dash & K.

Swain, Advocates For Opp. Parties - Mr. U.C. Behura, Addl. Government Advocate [OP No.1]

M/s. S. N. Patnaik and A. Nayak, Advocates [OP No.2]

----------- CORAM MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing & Judgment : 16.12.2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J Petitioner, an Ex-Serviceman, had staked his claim for appointment as a Trained Graduate Teacher (PCM) pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.11.2022. He had written the Preliminary Tests/Examinations and Mains Examination and thereafter he was called for interview. His candidature having not been favoured by the Odisha Staff Selection Commission, he is grieving before the Writ Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the requisite qualification, as prescribed in the advertisement, his client possesses, and despite that he has been kept out of the selection, unjustifiably. In support of this contention, he presses into service a decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.16508 of 2024 between Anakar Swain v. State of Odisha disposed off vide order dated 28.10.2025 in the light of a decision of Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.677 of 2008 between Social Justice, A Civil Rights Group v. Government of N.C.T.

Delhi decided on 16.09.2009.

3. After service of notice, the State has entered appearance through learned AGA and the Staff Selection Commission is represented by its Panel Counsel. Said Panel Counsel has filed the counter resisting the petition. He contends that the qualifications prescribed by the advertisement in question are very specific and intelligible; his client is only a selecting body, the qualifications being prescribed by the State in its requisition orders; it would go strictly in accordance with the letter &

sprit of such prescription in the advertisement; by that standard, petitioner’s B.Ed. Special Education secured at the hands of Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) does not satisfy the requirement and therefore, he is not entitled to any relief at the hands of this Court. He also tells that in fact petitioner has misled the Staff Selection Commission in not putting the things in black & white deliberately and therefore, such a sharp practice should disentitle him to any relief. Learned AGA adopts the submissions made on behalf of the Staff Selection Commission.

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

4.1. Admittedly, petitioner does possess B.Sc. (PCM) and B.Ed. Special Education from IGNOU. He is an Ex-Serviceman and therefore, certain number of posts is reserved for that category of candidates. The essential question arising in the case is as to whether B.Ed. Special Education secured by the petitioner at the hands of IGNOU does satisfy the requirement of B.Ed. mentioned in the advertisement. The advertisement prescribes following as the requirement:

4.2. Almost identical question arose before the Delhi High Court in Social Justice, A Civil Rights Group (supra). The Court held that B.Ed. Special Education in broader aspects is much more trained in comparison to B.Ed. General. This opinion is formed on the basis of affidavit filed by the Member Secretary of Rehabilitation Council of India. Similar question arose before this Court in Anakar Swain (supra) and the opinion of Delhi High C