Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Bijayaketan Bidyadhar Sahoo on 4 April, 2023
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. Nos. 1321, 1423, 1431, 1444 And 1296 of 2022
W.A. No.1321 of 2022
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
Mr. R.N. Mishra, Additional Government Advocate
-versus-
Bijayaketan Bidyadhar Sahoo .... Respondent
Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, Advocate
W.A. No.1423 of 2022
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Additional Government Advocate
-versus-
Prasanta Kumar Mallick .... Respondent
W.A. No.1431 of 2022
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Additional Government Advocate
-versus-
Sulekha Sarin .... Respondent
W.A. No.1444 of 2022
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
Mr. R.N. Mishra, Additional Government Advocate
-versus-
Soumyaranjan Kar .... Respondent
Mr. Santosh Kumar Swain, Advocate
W.A. No.1296 of 2022
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
Mr. R.N. Mishra, Additional Government Advocate
-versus-
Jyotiranjan Jena and others .... Respondents
Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, Advocate
Page 1 of 6
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 04.04.2023
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.
01. 1. All these writ appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 6th May, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in the corresponding writ petitions whereby the non-consideration of the candidature of the Respondents for appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) in the stream of Arts or Science was held to be illegal and a positive direction was issued by the learned Single Judge to the present Appellants-State to consider their candidature "in light of the fact that they possess all requisite qualifications and have qualified in the CBT".
2. The background facts are that an advertisement was published by the School and Mass Education Department, Government of Odisha on 28th August, 2021 for different posts of TGT in the Government Secondary Schools. The notification indicated the eligibility norms. Relevant to the present cases is the educational qualifications that were to be possessed by the candidates. As far as the post of TGT (Arts) is concerned, the requirement was possessing a Bachelor Degree in Arts from a recognized university "with two school subjects (school subjects as defined in the proviso hereunder) from a recognized university having 50% marks in aggregate (45% for SC/ST/PWD/SEBC candidates) and Bachelor in Education (B. Ed)/3-year integrated B. Ed-M. Ed from a NCTE recognized institution."
Page 2 of 63. The proviso reads as under:
"In any case the candidate must have passed the Bachelor Degree with any two school subjects offered as Pass/ Hons./ Elective/ Optional/ Compulsory subject out of the following:
English, Odia, Hindi, Sanskrit, History, Geography, Economics, Political Science, Indian Economy, Landmarks in Indian History, Indian Geography, Indian Polity."
4. Baring W.A. No.1444 of 2022, in the remaining writ appeals, the controversy was about the candidates having graduate degrees in 'Communicative English' and 'Business Economics' which according to the Appellants did not strictly conform to the requirement that they should have graduated in 'English' and 'Economics'.
5. The learned Single Judge noted that across the State, in the B.Com Degree course English is called 'Communicative English' and Economics is called 'Business Economics'. In the circumstances it was held that denying B.Com graduates the opportunity to get appointed as TGTs on the above ground would be to use a 'hyper-technical approach which is fully arbitrary which amounts to an artificial discrimination which cannot hold in law'. The learned Single Judge understood 'Communicative English' and English to mean the same subject just like Economics would include Macro Economics, Micro Economics and Business Economics. The learned Single Judge also took note on the fact that each of the Respondents/Candidates had also passed the Computer Based Test (CBT) and were, therefore, otherwise eligible to be appointed as TGTs.
Page 3 of 66. In W.A. No.1444 of 2022, the controversy was whether the Respondent candidate had satisfied the educational qualification for the purposes of being appointed as TGT (Science) (CBZ category) for which the candidate should have possessed a Bachelor's Degree in two of the school subjects, i.e., "Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Biology and Bio-Technology". The candidate here possessed a Bachelor's Degree in 'Life Sciences' and according to the Appellant this could not be treated as equivalent to 'Botany and Zoology'. The learned Single Judge accepted the plea of the Respondent that in the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), Life Science course was considered equivalent to Botany and Zoology (Biology) and that the IGNOU authorities had supplied such information under the RTI Act.
7. It is submitted by Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants in these appeals that inasmuch as the advertisement itself did not recognize any 'equivalence' with the above subjects, the learned Single Judge could not have simply treated 'Communicative English' as 'English' or 'Business Economics' as 'Economics' or 'Life Sciences' as 'Zoology or Botany'. This, according to him, was reading into the advertisement a stipulation that did not exist and, therefore, the impugned order ought to be set aside by this Court.
8. In one of the writ appeals, i.e., W.A. No.1296 of 2022, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/Candidates has filed an additional affidavit placing on record the subsequent advertisement issued by the Appellants for recruitment of TGTs in various streams including Arts and Science (CBZ). In this fresh advertisement, both Page 4 of 6 'Business Economics' and 'Communicative English' have been added with an asterisk (*) mark stating that candidates possessing Bachelor's Degree in such subjects "are provisionally allowed to participate in the recruitment process" subject to the result of W.A. No.1296 of 2022 pending in this Court. Likewise, against the post of TGT (CBZ), it has been clarified that candidates possessing a degree in 'Life Sciences' will be allowed to participate subject to the result of W.A. No.1444 of 2022.
9. What this shows is that the Appellants have themselves recognized the equivalence between 'Communicative English' and 'English', 'Business Economics' and 'Economics' and 'Zoology and Botany' with 'Life Science' and are prepared to accept the candidates possessing graduate degrees in those subjects as being eligible to participate in the recruitment process for the post of TGT (Arts) and TGT (CBZ).
10. It is then argued by Mr. Mishra, learned AGA that the subsequent advertisement can only apply prospectively. The Court notes that this change brought about in the advertisement was precisely on account of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge which, although challenged in this Court, has been accepted for future advertisements. Denying the benefit to the candidates who have in fact succeeded before the learned Single Judge would be subjecting them to an unfair discrimination when the same benefit is allowed to candidates applying pursuant to the subsequent advertisement. The Court sees no prejudice being caused to the Appellant in extending the benefit of the judgment of the learned Page 5 of 6 Single Judge to those very candidates who have succeeded before the learned Single Judge.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is not satisfied that grounds have been made out for interference with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.
12. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (G. Satapathy) Judge S. Behera Page 6 of 6