Orissa HC upholds OSEPA merit list for recruitment of Schematic Junior Teachers; holds Clause 8.3 of Resolution for district wise draft merit list violative of Art. 14 & 16

“It is settled law that a recruiting agency for recruitment to a public post is under obligation to strictly follow the terms of advertisement if it lays down a procedure for selection as well as a statutory rules, if any, governing such recruitment/selection process.”

Orissa High Court

Orissa High Court: In a batch of intra-Court appeals against a decision of the Single Judge, whereby, the draft result sheet for recruitment to the posts of Junior Teacher (Schematic) was quashed and the State authorities were directed to prepare District-wise and category-wise draft merit list, the Division Bench of Chakradhari Sharan Singh*, CJ. and M.S. Raman, J. held that the Clause 8.3 of the Resolution, which contemplates district wise draft merit list was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Upholding the Odisha School Education Programme Authority’s (‘OSEPA’) merit list, the Court directed that the marks scored by the aspirants in the CBT shall be the basis for determination of the merit of the aspirants and on the basis of the Computer Based Test held by the OSEPA, the State shall fix the first set of minimum cut-off marks.

Background

Notice of Recruitment to Post of Junior Teacher (Schematic)

An advertisement/notice was issued on 10-09-2023 by the OSEPA for recruitment to the posts of Junior Teacher (Schematic). The said notice was issued in pursuance of a Resolution dated 22-08-2023 (‘Resolution’) and Letter dated 08-09-2023 of the School and Mass Education Department (‘S and ME Department’), Government of Odisha. The Notice provided that the candidates will be selected on the basis of marks secured on CBT (Computer Based Test) examination. The Government, in supersession of the previous resolution decided to conduct recruitment for engagement of Junior Teacher (Schematic) through an online CBT. The Clause 8 of the Resolution laid down the selection procedure, inclusive of the procedure for publication of master list, online CBT, District wise and Category wise draft merit list, Document verification, preparation of district wise provisional merit list and approval, publication of district wise final merit list and Counselling.

Dissension and the impugned Decision

About 58 petitioners questioned the process of recruitment to the posts of Junior Teacher (Schematic). The petitioners submitted their online applications pursuant to the advertisement. All the petitioners had given their preference for all the 30 districts of the State in order of their choice. Common CBTs were conducted on different dated. The petitioner’s case was that based on the said CBTs, a master select list was required to be published, category wise, in respect of the first preference districts given by candidates on the OSEPA website. A draft result sheet was, however, published on 15-1-2024 for different categories on the OSEPA website, which was not the district-wise, in violation of the selection procedure prescribed in Clause-8 of the Resolution dated 22-08-2023.

The petitioners approached the Court challenging the draft result sheet and sought a direction to the OSEPA to proceed with the selection, strictly in accordance with the guidelines as laid down in the Resolution and to engage the petitioners in their preferred districts. In the impugned decision, on the question of non-compliance of the requirement in paragraph 8.3 of the Resolution, interfered with the draft result sheet as well as the district-wise list published for each of the districts by segregating the names which was produced before the Court in a sealed cover. Hence, in the impugned decision, the Single Judge quashed the draft result sheet and so also the district and category wise list published for each of the 30 districts and directed the State authorities to prepare District-wise and category-wise draft merit list strictly in terms of the provision contained in Clause -8.3 of the Resolution and after publication of District-wise and category-wise list, it shall proceed with the selection in terms of the provisions contained under Clause 8, before publishing the district-wise final result.

The candidates who were found successful in the CBT and had their names were in the draft result sheet challenged the judgment of the Single Judge.

Analysis

The Court noted that Clause 8.3 of the Resolution prescribed that draft merit list is to be prepared taking into consideration the district preference of individual candidates for a particular district and after exhausting the candidates having the first preference, subsequent preferences will be considered and that it has been specified that ‘for a particular post, in a category within district, district preference will be preferred over merit’. The Court relied on Radhey Shyam Singh v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 60, wherein, while answering the question as to whether a selection based on zonal basis violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court ruled that zone wise selection would result in the devaluation of merit at the selection examination by selecting a candidate having lesser marks over the meritorious candidate who had secured more marks and consequently, the rule of equal chance for equal marks would be violated and such process would not only be against the principles enunciated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution but would also result in heartburning and frustration amongst the young men of the country.

Further, the Court relied on P. Rajendran v. State of Madras, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 105, wherein, a Rule promulgated by the State of Madras for selection of candidates for admission to the first year integrated MBBD course was under challenge, Rule 8 of which provided that the seats reserved in general pool and the seats reserved for the socially and educationally backward classes will be allocated among the various districts on the basis of the ratio of the population of each district to the total population of the State, the Supreme Court laid down that if the object is to attract the best talent, from the two sources, district-wise allocation would destroy that object. The Rule 8 was struck down for being violative of Article 14 and it was laid down that, “the various options in the matter of nativity certificate show that candidates will have a number of districts to choose from depending upon where they think that their chances are best and therefore the argument that district-wise allocation is justifiable on this ground is in our opinion of no merit.”

Conclusion

Therefore, placing reliance upon both the authorities, the Court held that the Clause 8.3 of the Resolution, which contemplates district wise draft merit list violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and opined that it will be unjust and improper to allow the authorities to follow the selection procedure prescribed in the Resolution. The Court said that the direction to the OSEPA in the impugned decision, as to preparation of the merit list strictly in accordance with Clause 8 of the Resolution would result into breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court laid down that such provision results in discrimination without any nexus between the requirement of preparation of district wise merit list on the basis of first preference and the object to be achieved i.e., selection of meritorious candidates for the post of teachers, which is one of the avowed objects of Section 8(g) of the Right to Education Act, 2009 i.e., to ensure good quality elementary education conforming to the standards and norms.

The Court also laid down that Clause 8 of the Resolution, which provides for giving first preference to the district-wise over merit cannot be saved by applying the rule of purposive construction. Further, the Court laid down that the entire selection process undertaken for recruitment to the post of Junior Teacher (Schematic) should not be declared illegal as that will hinder completion of the process of selection and seriously affect the teaching/education at the school level because of dearth of teachers.

The Court gave the following directions:

  1. The Court said that there was no illegality in the conduct of the CBT, hence, the marks scored by the aspirants in the CBT shall be the basis for determination of the merit of the aspirants and on the basis of the CBT held by the OSEPA, the State shall fix the first set of minimum cut-off marks, category wise/subject wise, taking into account the total number of posts advertised, considering the marks secured by the respective candidates in the said test.

  2. To prepare the Select list of such candidates who secured the cut-off marks or above and the preference given by the candidates at the time of application shall be considered for allocation of districts, based on merit-cum-preference.

  3. The minimum marks scored by candidates declared successful by the OSEPA, subject -wise/category-wise may be fixed as the first set of the minimum cut-off marks.

  4. It is open for the State to refix the set of cut-off marks later, from time to time, in the event, the posts remain unfilled because of non-joining of candidates or other similar reasons, which shall be confined to the number of posts advertised.

  5. In view of the fact that score of the petitioners in the online CBT was less than the minimum marks scored by candidates declared successful by the OSEPA, subject -wise/category-wise, the Court allowed the State to appoint such candidates considering their merit based on the score in CBT, and district-preference for the purpose of allocation a district.

[Jaymarathi Senapati v. Chintamani Bhuian, 2024 SCC OnLine Ori 1583, Decided on: 18-06-2024]

*Judgment Authored by: Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh


Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellants: Senior Advocate Budhadev Routray, Advocate J. Biswal, Sr. Advocate Pami Rath, Advocate S. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate Prafulla Kumar Rath, Advocate Sagarika Sahoo

For Respondents: Advocate Sameer Kumar Das, Advocate General Ashok Kumar Parija, AGA Saswat Das, ASC Arnav Behera, Sameer Kumar Das

Buy Constitution of India  HERE

Constitution of India

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *