Can't Be Deprived Of Right For Being More Meritorious Due To Training: Orissa High Court Orders Appointment Of PwD Teacher

The Orissa High Court, while ordering the appointment of a PwD teacher, has held that a person cannot be deprived of a right otherwise available to him/her on the ground that he/she is more meritorious because of training.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking a direction to recommend the name of the Petitioner under the heading of untrained Applicant for ‘Sikshya Sahayakas’ and for a further direction for issuing the appointment order, after quashing the impugned order.

The Single Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad observed, "...under Guideline No.7 untrained OTET-I can apply for CT posts. There is absolutely no reason or rhyme to exclude trained candidates from applying. Here, one has to keep in mind that this Guideline is facilitative to the disadvantaged class of candidates like SC, ST & Physically Handicapped. A person cannot be deprived up a right otherwise available to him/her on the ground that he/she is more meritorious because of training. The expression “untrained SC, ST and PH Candidates” employed in this Guideline should not be literally interpreted, but it has to be given a constructive and purposeful interpretation. Otherwise, merit will be at casualty and nothing else..."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate C. Nayak, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Government Advocate S.K. Jee.

Facts  of the Case

The Petitioner bore the qualifications, namely, Orissa Teachers Eligibility Test (OTET-I) & B.Ed. She was a 1st Class Student from Matriculation to B.Ed. Admittedly, Petitioner had Physical Disability Certificate, in as much as she had 45% ocular disability. Pursuant to the Recruitment Notification she had made online application for her engagement as a Sikshya Sahayak. After the due verification, the second OP-Director prepared list of trained eligible Applicants during the year 2014-15 wherein Petitioner’s name figured in the said category. However, to her dismay, her name was struck off from the category of eligible trained Applicants, though she has B.Ed. qualification. The District Project Coordinator-OP brought her in the category of untrained CT candidates. 

During pendency of the Appeal challenging the same, the Board of Secondary Education promulgated the guidelines for “Orissa Teacher Eligibility Test (OTET) 2019” pursuant to corrigendum relaxedly altering the norms where under Graduation with minimum of 50% marks coupled with the B.Ed. secured from NCTE recognized institution, would be sufficient educational qualification for appointment as a teacher for Class-I to IV, if the appointed candidate undergoes a six month bridge courses in an Elementary Education recognized by NCTE within two years of appointment. Petitioner’s candidature having not been considered under the subject new guidelines and her challenge to the same failed as well.

Counsel for the Petitioner, drew attention of the Court to the ‘Handicapped Certificate’ told that the Petitioner is having 45% vision impairment; she was educationally fully qualified having OTET-I coupled with B.Ed.; under the General Instructions for Candidate, Petitioner’s application for engagement ought to have been considered, more particularly keeping in view Guideline Nos.2, 7 & 8; despite a direction by the Coordinate Bench, due consideration has not happened and that has resulted into duplication of the very same decision to the detriment of the Petitioner.

On the other hand, the AGA submitted that under Guideline-2, OTET-I candidates can apply for CT category and OTET-II candidates can apply for B.Ed. category; both are mutually exclusive; the very Application of the Petitioner was under CT category when she had OTETI; however, she was not entitled to engagement since she comes in the class ‘trained candidates’; for the same reason she cannot avail the benefit of Guideline Nos. 7 & 8, either.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset stated that a meritorious candidate coupled with the Physical Handicap has to be treated with due leniency, of course within the frame work of law. 

"If one reads Guideline No.2, one would gather an impression that the categories mentioned therein are mutually exclusive. As a broad generalization, it is true also. However, when one travels to Guideline Nos.7 & 8, one will find that they constitute a kind of exception to the generalization. Obviously, a special treatment is provided for the candidates belonging to oppressed classes of the society, and that a candidate having physical handicap is also placed on par with these classes in the wisdom of policy maker. Admittedly, petitioner has OTETI coupled with First Class B.Ed. and she has been certified visual impairment of 45%", the Court observed.

It thus concluded that under Guideline No.7 untrained OTET-I can apply for CT posts and there is absolutely no reason or rhyme to exclude trained candidates from applying as the Guideline is facilitative to the disadvantaged class of candidates like SC, ST & Physically Handicapped.

"...In the District Project Coordinator’s decision No.1465 dated 20.05.2017, petitioner was treated as an untrained candidate, whereas now she is being treated as a trained candidate. There is no explanation offered for this oscillation, when the fact matrix remains intact. Therefore, the passionate contention of the learned AGA that the categories are made mutually exclusive in terms of Guideline No.2 cannot sway away the case of petitioner. The impugned order runs counter to this", the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Prajnya Parimita Barik vs. State of Odisha & others

Click here to read/ download Order