Orissa High Court: The present petition was filed by the petitioner, an aspirant for the post of teacher, after two rounds of litigation, seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to recommend her name under the category of untrained applicant for ‘Sikshya Sahayakas’ and to issue the appointment order, after quashing the impugned order dated 26-03-2025. A Single Judge Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad, J., while allowing the petition, held that the expression “untrained SC, ST and PH Candidates” in the Guideline should not be interpreted literally, but given a constructive and purposeful meaning. The Court emphasised that the Guideline was facilitative to disadvantaged candidates like SC, ST, and Physically Handicapped, and a person could not be denied a right otherwise available solely because of being more meritorious due to training.
Background:
The petitioner had the required qualifications, namely, Orissa Teachers Eligibility Test (‘OTET-I’) and B.Ed. She was a 1st Class Student from Matriculation to B.Ed. She also had a Physical Disability Certificate, showing 45% ocular disability. Following the Recruitment Notification dated 11-09-2014, she had submitted an online application for engagement as a Sikshya Sahayak. After proper verification, the Director had prepared a list of trained eligible applicants for the year 2014-15, and the petitioner’s name appeared at in that category.
However, her name was later removed from the list of eligible trained applicants, despite having a B.Ed. qualification. The District Project Coordinator placed her in the category of untrained CT candidates. She challenged this classification, but her petition was dismissed by order dated 04-10-2016.
Consequently, the petitioner’s candidature was not considered under the new guidelines, so she challenged the order dated 20-05-2017, which had rejected her application. A Coordinate Bench of the Court, by order dated 12-02-2025, quashed that rejection and sent the matter back for fresh consideration. However, the Director, through office again rejected her claim, and that became the subject of the present writ petition.
It was submitted that the petitioner, having 45% vision impairment and being educationally qualified with OTET-I and B.Ed., ought to have been considered for engagement under the General Instructions dated 11-09-2014, especially in light of Guideline 2, 7 and 8. Despite a prior direction by the Coordinate Bench, due consideration had not occurred, resulting in duplication of the same decision to her detriment, warranting interference by this Court.
The counsel for the Opposite Parties resisted the petition and justified the order and the reasons behind it. It was contented that under Guideline 2, OTET-I candidates could apply for CT category and OTET-II candidates could apply for B.Ed. category, and both were mutually exclusive. The petitioner’s application was under CT category while she had OTET-I, but she was not entitled to engagement since she belonged to the class of ‘trained candidates’. For the same reason, she could not avail the benefit of Guideline 7 and 8 either. It was further alleged that years had passed, and even otherwise, the petitioner could not be accommodated, especially since vacancies were being notified periodically.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the petitioner possessed OTET-I and B.Ed., and there was no dispute that she fell under the category of Physically Handicapped, having 45% visual impairment, exceeding the minimum prescribed 40% for availing the benefits. The Court observed that she had consistently been a 1st Class Student from Matriculation to B.Ed., making her a meritorious candidate. The Court further noted that a meritorious candidate, coupled with physical handicap, had to be treated with due leniency within the framework of law. However, the impugned order did not reflect this approach, even though the petitioner had come before the Court for the third time, which constituted the first legal flaw in the impugned action.
The Court observed that Guideline 2 stated OTET-I passed candidates could apply for CT category and OTET-II passed candidates could apply for B.Ed. category only, giving the impression that these categories were mutually exclusive. However, the Court noted that Guideline 7 allowed OTET-I passed untrained SC, ST, and PH candidates to apply for CT posts, and Guideline 8 permitted OTET-II passed Graduates of SC, ST, and PH category to apply for CT posts. These provisions, the Court held, constituted exceptions to the generalisation in Guideline 2.
The Court emphasised that under Guideline 7, untrained OTET-I candidates could apply for CT posts, and there was no reason to exclude trained candidates from doing so. It was highlighted that the Guideline was intended to facilitate disadvantaged groups like SC, ST, and Physically Handicapped candidates, and a person could not be denied a right otherwise available solely because of being more meritorious due to training. The Court further observed that the phrase “untrained SC, ST and PH Candidates” should not be interpreted literally, but rather given a constructive and purposeful meaning, otherwise, merit would suffer, and nothing else.
The Court emphasised that the petitioner had appeared before it twice and before the authorities thrice, demonstrating relentless pursuit of justice. The Court noted that the time spent in successive legal battles could not justify denying relief to the victorious party, as the fruits of successful litigation, however long, should ordinarily reach the hands of the winner, otherwise, the faith of right-thinking individuals would be shaken, which would not augur well for the rule of law.
The Court observed that vacancies commonly arose due to retirement, resignation, removal, or death, and the petitioner ought to be accommodated in one such vacancy. The Court noted concluded that the impugned action of the Opposite Parties was flawed, and further remanding the matter would serve no purpose, as repeated remands would only disillusion the litigants.
The Court, therefore allowed the petition and directed the Opposite Parties to select and appoint the petitioner to the post in question in any available vacancy, with compliance to be reported to the Registrar General within eight weeks. The Court further clarified that the appointment would have prospective effect, and the petitioner would not be entitled to any monetary or service benefits for the past period.
[Prajnya Parimita Barik v. State of Orissa, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 3124, decided on 22-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: C. Nayak and R.K. Nayak, Advocates
For the Opposite Parties: S.K. Jee, Addl. Government Advocate
