IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.C(OAC) No.1974 of 2015

Puspanjali Sahoo

….

Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha & Others

….

Opposite Parties

CORAM:

JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

Order No

ORDER

23.06.2022

1. 1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2.

This application involves a challenge to the illegal action of the

Opposite Party No.1 in rejecting the candidature of the Petitioner

through the publication of the common merit list (provision) as well

as the final list of the candidates for the post of Contractual Hindi

Teachers in the Govt. Secondary Schools in 2014-15 involved in an

advertisement process indicated herein. 3

3.

Background involved in this case is that after completion of the

Board of Secondary Education level the Petitioner passed +2

Examination from the Baba Harekrushna Das, Mahavidyalaya under

CHSE pattern and then he completed the +3 degree course from the

Utkal University. It further disclosed through the application that

after achieving the above qualification the Petitioner completed the

Rastravasa Shastri Examination under the Odisha Rastravasa

Parisad, Jagannath Dham, Puri in the year 2011 securing more than

50% of mark. The Petitioner in the meantime also completed M.A. in

Hindi from Allahabad Agricultural Institute in 2014. It is also

pleaded that for the Petitioner belonging to S.E.B.C category the

// 2 //

Page 2 of 5

concerned Tahasildar issued S.E.B.C certificate in favour of the

Petitioner vide Annexure-4. It appears, pursuant to the resolution

dated

27.10.2014

published

requiring

applications

from

the

candidates for recruitment of Hindi Teachers alongwith other

Teaching Staffs in Govt. Secondary Schools, the Petitioner applied for

the post of Contractual Hindi Teachers. It appears, the Government

therein had prescribed certain qualification criteria for different

posts. It is further pleaded that a Common Merit List (Provisional) of

the candidates for the post of Contract Teachers in Govt. High

Schools 2014-15 was prepared without selecting the name of the

Petitioner as appearing at Annexure-6. In furtherance of the

publication of the Common Merit List (Provisional), there also

appears a final merit list to have been published again ignoring the

case of the Petitioner.

4.

Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel for the Petitioner taking this

Court to the advertisement issued for the recruitment purpose and

specifically drawing the attention of this Court to the qualification

criteria at paragraph No.3(f) of the resolution vide Annexure-4,

attempted to establish that in spite of the Petitioner having the

required qualification, the case of the Petitioner has been ignored in

the selection process. In the process Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel

for the Petitioner sought for intervention of this Court in the merit

list prepared for the recruitment in question and for issuing

appropriate direction for appointment of the Petitioner in the post of

Contractual Hindi Teachers in Government Secondary Schools

pursuant to the resolution in 2014-15.

5.

Pursuant to issuance of notice the Opposite Party No.3 in filing

a counter affidavit attempted to justify the action of the Opposite

Parties in not selecting the Petitioner in the recruitment process in

question. Mr. Mishra, learned Standing counsel for the School &

Mass Education Department drawing the attention of this Court to

the pleadings made in paragraph nos.6, 7 & 8 of the counter affidavit

// 3 //

Page 3 of 5

contended that for the Petitioner did not have the Hindi training

qualification such as Hindi Sikshya Parangata or B.H.ED or B.Ed in

Hindi, the authorities are justified in not selecting the case of the

Petitioner. In the above premises Mr. Mishra, learned Standing

Counsel for the School & Mass Education Department requested