Orissa High Court
Satyakrushna Das vs State Of Odisha & Others .... ... on 25 November, 2021
Author: M.S.Sahoo
Bench: M.S.Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.36760 of 2021
Satyakrushna Das .... Petitioner
Mr.Durgesh Naryan Rath, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opp.parties
Mr. S.Jena, Standing Counsel for the School
and Mass Education Department
(for opp.party nos.1 & 2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO
ORDER
25.11.2021 Order No. 1 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard Mr. D. Rath, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Jena, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department-opposite party nos.1 & 2.
It is submitted by Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner that though his name is placed at serial no.158 of the merit list at page-39, subsequently his name was deleted on the said merit list.
Since the writ petition is being disposed of on a limited compass at the stage of admission, no notice is being needs issued to opposite party no.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that otherwise the petitioner is not aggrieved by any action of opposite party nos.2.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Advertisement under Annexure-1 (Page-
16) to the writ petition contains a condition at para-5.C(c) which indicates that "He/she must have passed the Odisha // 2 // Secondary School Teacher Eligibility Test (OSSTET) in concerned category and subject." The principal contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the candidature of the petitioner has been accepted and merit list was published vide Annexure-4 (Page-32) where the petitioner's name finds place at sl. No.158 at page-39. But subsequently the name of petitioner was not published in provisional select list, on the ground of not passing OSSTET Examination.
Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Government of Odisha, School and Mass Education Department Resolution dated 27.10.2014, which has been annexed and marked as Annexure-8, wherein at Clause-3(c) the Educational Qualification of Classical Teacher (Sanskrit) provides that "the untrained candidates shall have to undergo required training within the timeline as prescribed by Govt."
It is further submitted that though initially the authorities intended to conduct two OSSTET examinations, but the second examination could not be conducted, due to the prevailing pandemic situation and till date one examination could be held, as a result, the petitioner also could not avail the chance of appearing at the OSSTET examination. The learned counsel Mr. Rath submits that an advertisement, dated 10.11.2021 has been made for appearing OSSTET examination. Further, it is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya Sangathan, which is under the State Government, had invited applications for the posts of Principal and Teaching Posts in the Odisha Adarsha Vidyalayas in the State of Odisha, 2019 under Annexure-5 (page-55) which contains a provision at clause-3.1.(d), which indicates "The candidates who have not passed the Page 2 of 3 // 3 // OSSTET/CTET but are otherwise eligible for the post may apply for the post with a condition that they shall have to pass OSSTET/CTET within 3 years of joining in the post."
In the above background, the petitioner raises a limited grievance that he has submitted a representation/objections, marked as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, which is pending consideration and disposal. The said representation has been addressed to opposite party no.2.
Considering the aforesaid submissions, the writ petition is disposed of, directing opposite party no.2/appropriate authority, to consider the grievance of the petitioners and take decision in accordance with law, taking into account all relevant materials on record, as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of certified copy of this order. The decision so taken shall be communicated by the authority within two weeks thereafter to the petitioners.
The petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate follow up action as available under law pursuant to the decision of the authority.
However, it is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, in any manner whatsoever.
Issue urgent certified copy, as per rules.
The copy of the order be uploaded in the official Website.
( M.S.Sahoo) Judge Gs Page 3 of 3