AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.P. Routray, J.
The Petitioner has challenged subsequent rejection of her selection to the post of Sanskrit teacher in the district of Nabarangpur and further prayed to give her appointment as such.
Pursuant to the advertisement dated 10th May 2018 for selection to 11 posts of Sanskrit teachers including 3 posts in UR category and 2 posts in UR(W) category, the Petitioner applied for and was selected for the post as per selection list dated 7th January 2019 under Annexure-2. She was placed at Sl. No.5 of the select list in the UR(W) category. Subsequently the select list under Annexure-2 was revised and a fresh select list dated 11th January 2019 was published under Annexure-4 deleting the name of the Petitioner. The Petitioner made her representation against the fresh select list which was not heeded to and as such she approached this court in the present writ petition.
The State – Opposite Parties have filed their counter affidavit through the District Welfare Officer, Nabarangpur. It is stated that in the initial select list dated 7th January 2019 the names of some candidates including the Petitioner were inadvertently placed due to some error, which was subsequently rectified and a fresh select list dated 11th January 2019 was published. As per their counter affidavit, the candidates named at Sl. No.1, 2, 5 (present Petitioner), 7, 8 and 11 were wrongly selected and as such their names were deleted in the fresh selection list.
Amongst the private Opposite Parties, only Opposite Party No.7, namely Sarita Das, entered appearance and filed her counter affidavit. But no-one represented her at the time of hearing.
As per advertisement dated 10th May 2018 under Annexure-1, the eligibility criteria for Sanskrit teacher is as follows:-
“c. Sanskrit Teacher- Bachelor Degree with Sanskrit as one of the elective/optional/Honours/Pass subject from a recognized University with minimum 50% marks in aggregate (45% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) with Sikshya Shastri (Sanskrit) (a course prescribed by NCTE) from a recognized University / Institution recognized by NCTE and affiliated to a recognized University.
OR
Shastri (Sanskrit) with minimum 50% marks in aggregate (45% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) for a recognized University and Sikshya Shastri (Sanskrit) ( a course prescribed by NCTE) from a recognized University / Institution recognized by NCTE and affiliated to a recognized University.
Or
Acharya (Expect Jyotishacharya and Ayurvedacharya) or Sahityaacharya with minimum 50% marks in aggregate from a recognized University.
Or
Bachelor’s Degree with Sanskrit as on the Optional/Hons. Subject with minimum 50% marks in aggregate (45% for SC/ST/PH/OBC/SEBC candidates) and M.A. in Sanskrit with minimum 50% marks in aggregate from a recognized University.
In case trained candidates are not available untrained candidates shall be engaged.
(The untrained candidates shall have to undergo required training within the time line as prescribed by Govt.)”
It is specific case of the Petitioner that when training qualification was not specifically mentioned in the eligibility criteria as per the advertisement, adherence of the same subsequently after publication of first select list to prepare the revised select list is erroneous and unacceptable. It is contended by the Petitioner that she had the Bachelor degree with Sanskrit and had Acharya (M.A.) qualification making her eligible for the post applied for. Such contention of the Petitioner that she had the requisite qualification, i.e. bachelor degree with Sanskrit as Hons. Subject and acquisition of Acharya qualification equivalent to post graduation degree in Sanskrit, is not denied by the Opposite Parties.
As per the eligibility criteria stated in the advertisement dated 10th May 2018, the Petitioner has requisite qualification for the post of Sanskrit teacher. It is true that training qualification, i.e. Sikshya Shastri or B.Ed. has not been mentioned as required criteria in the advertisement under Annexure-1, though it is mentioned that in case trained candidates are not available, untrained candidates shall be engaged. The definition of trained candidate and untrained candidate has not been provided in the advertisement. So according to the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement the Petitioner cannot be termed as ineligible for the post of Sanskrit teacher.
The Petitioner is undisputedly a resident of Nabarangpur district and she secured 181.28% in total in the select list as per Annexure-2.
It is submitted that A. Hemalata (Opposite Party No.5) is enlisted in the revised select list dated 11th January 2019 though she secured 179.82% which is less than the Petitioner’s mark. Another candidate namely Nirupama Sarkar (Opposite Party No.6) is selected in the revised list despite she passed her matriculation examination in 3rd division. Another candidate namely Sarita Das (Opposite Party No.7) is included in the revised select list though she has not produced her employment exchange registration certificate at the time of submission of her application for the post. Opposite Party No.8 – Sudhir Kumar Jena though did not submit the requisite fee of Rs.200/- at the time of submission of his application, but his name was included in the revised merit list illegally permitting him to deposit said amount after publication of the merit list. However, the admitted fact remains that, said Sudhir Kumar Jena has now left the job by tendering resignation and the post is lying vacant.
Opposite Party No.7 in her counter affidavit has stated that she being selected has joined in her post since 3rd February 2019 and receiving monthly remuneration. She has further denied the allegation made against her regarding non-submission of district employment exchange certificate and according to her she submitted said certificate well in advance at the time of submission of application.
The District Welfare Officer in his reply has produced a copy of mark sheet of Nirupama Sarkar to submit that she secured 46.43% in the High School Board Examination, which is taken as such for his placement irrespective of her division in the Board Examination.
So far as A. Hemalata is concerned, the District Welfare Officer has denied the allegations against her and has stated that she possessed training qualification, i.e. Sikshya Shastri in the year 2015. A copy of the certificate has been annexed at Annexure-F/3 to the counter.
The Petitioner produced the information, under Annexure-7 series, obtained through RTI Act regarding M.A. qualification of A. Hemalata by way of additional affidavit (dated 5th July 2021). As per said information, the date of publication of result of Sikshya Shastri by A. Hemalata from Shree Lalbahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit Bidyapitha, New Delhi is dated 16th July 2018. This fact is never denied by the Opposite Parties. It is to be emphasized here that the date of publication of advertisement is dated 10th May 2018 without specifically mentioning any cut-off date for acquisition of requisite qualification. So it is clear that she did not have Sikshya Shastri qualification on the date of advertisement since the date of publication of her result is 16th July 2018. However, this court refrains from opining anything against her selection and it is made clear that her appointment to the post of Sanskrit teacher is not affected by any such observation made in this judgment and this court is confining to the rejection of initial selection of the Petitioner and her appointment to the post.
It has been specifically stated by the District Welfare Officer in his additional affidavit dated 12th May 2023 (filed on 18th May 2023) that at present due to resignation of Sudhir Kumar Jena and retirement / death / promotion etc., five posts of Sanskrit teachers are lying vacant in Nabarangpur and as per the interim direction of this court dated 23rd March 2023 one such vacant post of Sanskrit teacher is available.
Further the specific averment of the Petitioner that A. Hemalata secured less mark than the Petitioner in the select list is not answered by the State – Opposite Parties.
So in view of the discussions made above, the Petitioner is found suitable for appointment to the post of Sanskrit teacher and rejection of her candidature after initial select list dated 7th January 2019 is published, is held illegal. Consequently, Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are directed to give her appointment to the post of Sanskrit teacher in Nabarangpur suitably with effect from the date of initial appointment of other candidates given out of the same select list dated 11th January 2019, by extending consequential service and financial benefits in her favour notionally.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
………………………..