G. Satapathy, J
1. The petitioner invokes the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to give
appointment to her as a Contract Hindi Teacher with all consequential benefits.
2. The foundational facts under which the petitioner has filed this writ are, pursuant to an advertisement issued by OPNo.2, the petitioner and others
applied for the post of Contract Teacher (Hindi) in Mayurbhanj District and, thereafter, a provisional merit list of Contract Teachers (Hindi) was
prepared by OPNo.3 for the year 2012-13 for Government and Upgraded High Schools, but the petitioner noticed her name in the merit list at Serial
No.250. It is alleged by the petitioner that the date of birth, employment exchange registration no. and marks secured by her etc. were incorrect and
she further noticed that her date of birth, employment exchange registration no. and marks obtained in different subjects had been assigned to the
candidate at Serial No.6 of the list namely one Sudha Kumari and, accordingly, the petitioner made an objection on 15.12.2012 before OPNos.2 and 3,
but in vain. OPNo.3 accordingly prepared the final merit list category wise for posting of Contract Teachers (Hindi) and the petitioner noticed that the
candidates who had secured less mark than her had been selected. According to the petitioner, she had secured 260.406 marks, whereas candidates
securing less mark at 250.025, 249.026, 246.800, 222.293, 216.895, 208.725, 240.567 and 237.478 had been selected. It is also found by the petitioner
that her OBC certificate has not been taken into consideration, while preparing the final merit list. Finding no way out, the petitioner has approached
this Court in this writ claiming violation of Article-14 of the Constitution of India.
In response to the notices of the writ, OPNo.3 only has filed counter supported with an affidavit by interalia denying all the allegations made against
the authority and averring that total 32 posts were advertised category wise which consisted of UR-2, UR(W)-1, SEBC-5, SEBC(W)-4, SC-2,
SC(W)-4, ST-9 and ST(W)-5 respectively and the DEO, Mayurbhanj had prepared the provisional merit list for the year 2012-13 and in such list, the
petitioner name finds place at Serial No.250. In such counter, OPNo.3 has further averred that the DEO had made a thorough scrutiny with regard to
the recruitment file and the process of selection and upon scrutinization of the candidature of different candidates and assessment of their marks, a
fresh select list was prepared on 24.01.2013, but pursuant to preparation of such revised merit list on the basis of the percentage of mark secured in
HSC, +2, +3 and Sastry, it was found that the petitioner had secured a total mark of 260.405% and said Sudha Kumari had secured 136.721%, but
since the petitioner was not possessing essential training qualification, her name was ignored and no untrained candidate was selected in the final merit
list. On the above averments, OPNo.3 has prayed to dismiss the writ.
Pursuant to such counter, the petitioner has filed rejoinder by interalia stating that the advertisement made under Annexure-1 never speaks that only
candidates with training qualification can be selected, but as per settled law, OPNo.3 could not have changed any norms and condition in the mid of
the selection process by incorporating qualification of “training†as an essential precondition for selection to the post. Further, OPNo.3 in his reply
to rejoinder has stated that the petitioner has passed HSC examination as well as BSC in information and technology examination (equivalent to
B.Sc.), Rastrabhasa Praveen Examination (Rastra Bhasa Prachar Samiti, Praveen equivalent to +2 (Rastra Bhasa Prachar Samiti, Puri, Praveen
equivalent to +2), Rastrabhasa Sastri Examination (Rastrabhasa Sastri from Rastrabhasa Sastri, Puri (equivalent to +3) and Upasastri examination
(equivalent to +2), but the petitioner has not passed Hindi training from the above Hindi Training Institute. It is also stated in such reply to rejoinder
that although the petitioner claims about appointment of Sudha Kumari who had secured less mark than her, but merely by showing the marks of both
the candidates, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of exemption of “training†qualification, and the name of petitioner and Sudha Kumari
having deleted from the merit list after examination of the essential qualification with reference to advertisement, the petitioner’s claim appears to
be unsustainable.
3. Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts in the writ has submitted that although the petitioner was eligible for the
post of Contract Teacher (Hindi), but after getting the application from the candidates, OPNo.3 prepared the draft merit list, wherein the petitioner
was stated to have secured 260.405% marks, whereas one Sudha Kumari placed at Serial No. 6 of the list had secured 136. 721% of marks and after
getting notice, OPNo.3 has changed and corrected the provisional merit list prepared earlier by one revised merit list and, thereby, one person namely
Rajalaxmi Behera, a SEBC women who was not having qualification as per the advertisement, was provided appointment, but the petitioner was
denied of appointment, even though she was having same qualification as that of Rajalaxmi Behera. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Mohanty has
prayed to allow the writ by directing the OPs to give appointment to the petitioner.
As against these submissions, Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned ASC has submitted that although the petitioner claims against some persons in paragraph-4
and 6 of his writ, but she has not made them as parties and, thereby, the claim of the petitioner itself is hit by non-joinder of necessary parties. Mr.
Mohapatra, however, has submitted that the petitioner was not at all having the requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement and, thereby, the
petitioner is not entitled to any appointment as the qualification of “training†was mandatory, but the petitioner was not having any “trainingâ€
qualification. Mr. Mohapatra has further submitted that although the petitioner claims that untrained candidates can also be selected, but the same
cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the advertisement itself says that if no trained candidate is found available, then only the untrained
candidate would be taken into consideration, but it is a clear from the merit list that no untrained candidates have been appointed by OPs. On the
aforesaid submissions, Mr. Mohapatra has accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ.
4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, the only question emerged for consideration is whether the petitioner was
having requisite qualification while applying for the post of Hindi Contract Teacher. Indisputably, the qualification of the petitioner to the post applied is
being disputed, this Court considers it apposite to refer to the advertisement to know as to what qualification has been prescribed for the post of Hindi
Teacher. Admittedly, an advertisement under Annexure-1 was published in the newspaper for the above purpose in which the eligibility for Hindi
Teacher had been prescribed as under:
“2(d) As regards the eligibility of candidates for engagement of contractual teachers, he/she must have obtained Bachelor’s degree in Arts, Science
alongwith a degree of Bachelor of Education from a recognized University for being considered as Trained Graduate Teacher. The candidate having Bachelor's
degree with Bio-Technology and B.Ed, is also eligible for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (CBZ). In case of +2 C.T., a candidate must have passed +2 and
C.T. from the recognized Board. In case of Hindi teacher, a candidate must have obtained a Bachelor's degree from a recognized University, with Hindi as one of
the elective subject or with Rastrabhasa Ratna from Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti, Wardha or with Sastri from Orissa Rastrabhasa Parisada, Puri or with
Snataka (Acquired by June-2005, the date up to which the temporary recognition has been granted) from Hindi Sikshaya Samiti, Orissa, Cuttack or an
equivalent degree from a recognized institution and Hindi Sikshyan Parangat from Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra/B.H.E.D. from Hindi Teachers Training
Institute, Cuttack, Bhubaneswar & Sambalpur. If persons with above qualifications are not available, then Person having the qualifications of a Bachelor's
degree from a Recognized University with Hindi as one of the elective subject or with Rastrabhasa Ratna from Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti, Wardha or with
Sastri from Orissa Rastra Bhasaa Parisad, Puri or with Snatak (acquired by June, 2005, the date up to which temporary recognition had been granted) from
Hindi Sikshya Samiti, Orissa, Cuttack or an equivalent Degree from Recognized Institution and Hindi Sikshyan Praveen from Kendriya, Hindi Sansthan Agra
shall be considered.â€
Now coming to the application form of the petitioner which has been placed at Annexure-2, it reveals that although the petitioner was having passed
HSC & BSC in IT, but she has only passed Rastravasa Praveen Exam in 2009, Rastravasa Shastri Exam and Upashastri Exam (equivalent to +2) in
the year 2010. However, she has not acquired the qualification of Bachelor's degree from a Recognized University with Hindi as one of the elective
subject or with Rastrabhasa Ratna from Rastrabhasa Prachar Samiti, Wardha or with Sastri from Orissa Rastra Bhasaa Parisad, Puri or with Snatak
(acquired by June, 2005, the date up to which temporary recognition has been granted) from Hindi Sikshya Samiti, Orissa, Cuttack or an equivalent
Degree from Recognized Institution and Hindi Sikshyan Praveen from Kendriya, Hindi Sansthan Agra. It is also claimed by the petitioner in alternative
that although even her qualification is not considered to be equivalent to the prescribed qualification, but she is otherwise qualified in view of the
relaxation as granted in advertisement that stipulation in case the person with above qualification are not available, the person having the qualification
of Bachelor's degree from a Recognized University with Hindi as one of the elective subject or with Rastrabhasa Ratna from Rastrabhasa Prachar
Samiti, Wardha or with Sastri from Orissa Rastra Bhasaa Parisad, Puri or with Snatak (acquired by June, 2005, the date up to which temporary
recognition had been granted) from Hindi Sikshya Samiti, Orissa, Cuttack or an equivalent Degree from Recognized Institution and Hindi Sikshyan
Praveen from Kendriya, Hindi Sansthan Agra. A person having an equivalent Degree from Recognized Institution and Hindi Sikshyan Praveen from
Kendriya, Hindi Sansthan Agra shall be considered, but the qualification shown in the application form of the petitioner vide Annexure-2, nowhere the
petitioner has stated that she has obtained an equivalent qualification as noticed above, rather the table containing educational qualification of the
petitioner only discloses that she has passed Rastravasa Praveen Exam, Rastravasa Shastri Exam and Upashastri Exam (equivalent to +2). Further,
no documents has been produced by the petitioner to indicate that person not having requisite eligibility qualification as per the advertisement has been
appointed by relaxing the eligibility criteria as claimed above by the petitioner.
5. It is, of course, claimed by the petitioner that one Rajalaxmi Behera, a SEBC women candidate who has been appointed was having same
qualification as she possessed, but the petitioner has not made said Rajalaxmi Behera as a party in this writ and, thereby, this Court cannot take into
consideration that said Rajalaxmi Behera was having same qualification with the petitioner and she was appointed not inconsonance with the
advertisement.
6. Now the question comes for consideration whether a candidate not having qualification can be considered for appointment. Law in this regard is
very well settled that eligibility criteria/conditions unless otherwise provided in the advertisement must be fulfilled by the candidate as on the last date
of receipt of application since all the appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other
words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate and, therefore, the selection process has to be
conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure and when a particular eligibility condition has been prescribed in an
advertisement, the same has to be strictly fulfilled and there cannot be any relaxation in terms and conditions of the advertisement, unless such is
altered or relaxed by way of any authority which specifically provides for such relaxation. Even then, if the power of relaxation is provided in the
Rules, it must still be maintained in the advertisement and in absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement and the
power of relaxation if exercised has to be given due publicity. A perusal of advertisement in this case will clearly show that the petitioner was not
having the requisite qualification, but she claims that the person having same qualification with her has been appointed, but no such candidate who has
been appointed as such was having the same qualification with that of the petitioner, has been made as a party in this writ nor any document has been
produced in that respect. Merely because the petitioner claims to have secured more marks than other candidates on the basis of percentage of marks
secured by her in HSC, +2 & B.Sc., it would not give her the advantage of getting appointment since the petitioner does not qualify for selection to the
post in terms of the advertisement. Moreover, it is claimed by the petitioner that even in absence of training qualification, she can otherwise be
appointed, but the same cannot be accepted as the advertisement itself says that if no trained candidate is available, then only be untrained candidate
would be taken into consideration, but OPNo.3 has categorically stated in his counter that no untrained candidate has been appointed. Further, the
petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in Dr. Sthitapragyan Mishra Vrs. State of Odisha and Ors.; 2023 (I) ILR CUT 807a nd Dr.
Smrutisudha Pattnaik Vrs. Acharya Harihar Regional Cancer Centre, Cuttack and Others; 2017 (Supp.-I) OLR 60, 7but the same are found
not applicable to the petitioner in this case, since the authority in this case has changed the eligibility conditions after commencement of the
examination process, and thereby, it cannot be said that the OPs has changed the rule of game after selection process has commenced.
7. On a conspectus of facts and circumstance as stated above together with the discussion made hereinabove, it goes without saying that the petitioner
was not having the requisite qualification in terms of advertisement and she could not establish that the persons having same qualification with her
have been appointed and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to be selected to the post of Hindi Contract Teacher on the basis of mark secured by
her is not acceptable and, thereby, the writ merits no consideration.
8. In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs. The original
record as produced by the learned ASC be returned back forthwith.
…………………………..
