Disposed

Nakul Ch.Sahoo v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC4 Aug 2016WP(C)/13538/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged an order disengaging them based on the non-equivalency of their Special Education Diploma. The court held merit was not decided, remitting the matter to the Director, OPEPA, to determine eligibility based on prior judgments and a government circular, allowing status quo pending final order.

What did the court decide?

Remitted before the Director, OPEPA, to consider claim in light of Biswambhar Behera judgment and Govt. Circular dated 5.2.2011; status quo maintained pending final order.

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 12.05.2010 as contained in An nexure-3 issued by the Joint Secretary to Government, School and Mass Education Department whe reby and where under in its letter dated 22.3.2010 issued on the basis of clarification by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack vide Letter No.284 dated 22.03.1010 clarifying that the Diploma in Special Education course is not equivalent to C.T. Examination course of B .S.E., Orissa due to the deficiency stipulated in the order.

Case of the petitioners is that they have been engaged as Sikshya Sahayak on the basis of having Diploma in Special Education course and thereafter they have started discharging th eir duty, but all of a sudden the Joint Secretary to Government, School and Mass Education Dep artment has come out with communication addressed to all Collectors dated 12.05.2010 as contai ned in Letter No.7991 issued on the basis of clarification given by the Board of Secondary Edu cation in its letter No.284 dated 22.03.2010 clarifying therein that the Diploma in Special Ed ucation Course is not equivalent to C.T. Examination.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court at the time of issuan ce of the notice vide order dated 04.10.2010 has passed interim order to the effect that if th e petitioner not already disengaged, he shall not be disengaged and by virtue of that interim order the petitioners are continuing.

Secondary Education clarifying that the Diploma in Special Education is not equivalent to C.T. Examination has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Biswambhar Behera vrs. State and others reported in 2012 (I) OLR 839.

By referring to para-20 of the said judgment, it has been submitted by him that the Go vernment circular No.2618/SME/dated 5.2.2011 has come out with a clarification regarding engag ement of Sikshya Sahayak during 2010-11 and as per Para-2 of this letter, the courses of Diplo ma in Education (Special Education) and B.Ed. (Special Education) recognized by the Rehabilita tion Council of India (RCI) had to be taken into consideration as equivalent to general C.T. c andidates.

Learned counsel for the School and Mass Education Department, Mr. Budhiman Rout has su bmitted that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered as to whether petitioners are coming under the parameter of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Biswambhar Behera (supra).

Considering the submission advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties, it w ould be appropriate at this stage, if the matter would be remitted before the Director, OPEPA, the opposite party no.2, he is required to consider case of the petitioners as to whether the petitioners are covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Biswambhar Behe ra (Supra) and the Government circular dated 5.2.2011.

grievance of the petitioners in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Biswambhar Behera (Supra) within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order whi ch shall be presented by the petitioners along with representation giving therein all details of claim within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that the Director while deciding the issue shall see as to whether th e petitioner is coming under parameter of the order passed by this Court in the case of Biswam bhar Behera (Supra), if answer will be affirmative, consequential decision shall be taken. How ever, in case of adverse decision, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner by passing reasoned order while shall be communicated to him forthwith.

Since, it has been found that the petitioners are is continuing with the post, if it i s so, they will continue to discharge their duty till the date of passing final order within t he period stipulated herein above.

Nakul Ch.Sahoo v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nakul Ch.Sahoo v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harihar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Bijayanti Naik Vs State of Orissa

Chitta Ranjan Bhol Vs State

Anita Rout Vs State of Orissa

Smt.Sarat Dalei Vs Ranjana Chopra

Arnapurna Dash Vs State and Ors.