Orissa High Court
Pramila Jena vs State Of Odisha And Ors .... Opp. Parties on 19 March, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 358 of 2017
Pramila Jena .... Petitioner
Represented by
Mr. S.Swain, Advocate
- Versus -
State of Odisha and Ors .... Opp. Parties
Represented by
AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER
19.03.2025 Order No. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
08. . 2. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Sikhya Sahayak pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2013. But for want of OTET qualification, he was not considered. He passed the OTET examination in the year 2017 subsequently as per the revised list of candidates appearing in the OTET examination, the petitioner was held to have qualified in the OTET examination w.e.f. 03.07.2013. By such time, however, the selection of Sikhya Sahayaks as per the advertisement had already been concluded. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C). No. 27115 of 2013. Said writ application was disposed of by order dated 13.01.2014 directing the State Project Director, OPEPA to consider the representation of the petitioner and to take a decision.
Page 1 of 3Pursuant to such order, the State Project Director, OPEPA vide order dated 06.06.2014 considered the representation and held as follows:
"6. That, as per the report of the DPC, SSA, Ganjam basing on the above advertisement and subsequently qualifying in CTET exam the petitioner again applied for the post of SS in the 2nd phase and as per verification of application it was found that she has secured 41.5 % of marks in graduation level for which her name found place in the trained reserved list and the same may be considered as per guidelines only and subject to the availability of vacancy.
In view of the above stated facts and circumstances the representation of the petitioner is disposed of accordingly".
3. According to the petitioner, his OTET qualification having been antedated to 03.07.2013 and persons securing less marks than him having been selected in the first phase selection, he ought to have been given appointment.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is stated that there are only 10 vacancies for SEBC (W) category under DPC, Ganjam out of 92 vacancies of TGT Arts post in second phase. Out of 47 eligible SEBC (W) candidates available for second phase for TGT Arts, the petitioner was at merit Sl. No. 43. As such, only top 10 candidates were selected in the said merit list.
5. In course of hearing, it has not been demonstrated that the above assertion of the State with regard to the vacancies is factually incorrect or wrong. Under such circumstances, the State cannot be blamed for not engaging the petitioner despite his eligibility in the second phase selection. To such extent, therefore, the impugned Page 2 of 3 order cannot be faulted with. However, fact remains that the petitioner has already acquired OTET qualification and that too, w.e.f. 03.07.2013. It is stated at the bar that because of error committed by the Board of Secondary Education at the relevant time the OTET certificate could not be issued in favour of the petitioner earlier and the same having been issued subsequently, was antedated. In the meantime, the selection process had concluded. Obviously, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the wrong committed by the Board of Secondary Education. Nevertheless, there being no vacancies available against the second phase selection no mandamus can be issued directing the authorities to engage the petitioner. However, taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the writ application is disposed of with direction to Opposite Party authorities to take note of the peculiar facts relating to the petitioner and to try and adjust him against an available vacancy in any other equivalent/redesignated post. Necessary instructions in this regard shall be issued by the Opposite Party No. 1 within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.
(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 20-Mar-2025 Deepak15:28:10 Page 3 of 3