Two petitioners with Diploma in Special Education sought notional engagement as Shikshya Sahayak from 2006, citing a precedent on DSE-C.T. equivalence. The court found their prior engagement as Block Resource Teachers made antedating impossible and dismissed both writ petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 17589 of 2013 & W.P.(C) No.17590 of 2013
Applications under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India.
---------------
W.P.(C) No. 17589 of 2013 Smt. Smita Nayak .…… Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha and others ...…. Opp. Parties W.P.(C) No. 17590 of 2013 Smt. Reeta Nayak ……. Petitioner - Versus - State of Odish aand others ..… Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
| For Petitioner | : M/s. B. Satapathy & T.K. Nayak, Advocates. |
|---|---|
| For Opp. Parties: | Mr. S.N. Patnaik Addl. Government Advocate [in W.P.(C) No.17589of 2013] |
| For Petitioner | : M/s. B. Satapathy & T.K. Nayak, Advocates. |
| For Opp. Parties: | Mr. S.N. Patnaik Addl. Government Advocate [in W.P.(C) No.17590of 2013] |
_________________________________________________________ CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Page 1 of 9
JUDGMENT 7th August, 2024
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Common questions of fact and law are involved in both these writ applications. As such, both the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
Page 2 of 9
in W.P.(C) No.6054 of 2007, which was disposed of on 01.11.2007 with direction to prefer an appeal before the Collector, Khurda. The Petitioners preferred appeal before the Collector, which was rejected on 08.10.2009 on the ground of non-receipt of clarification from the Government. The Petitioners again filed a Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No.1948 of 2010, which was disposed of on 22.01.2013 with direction the Collector to consider their cases in terms of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Biswambar Behera v. State Of Odisha and Others,1 . The Collector, after hearing all concerned passed an order on 12.04.2013 and taking note of the clarification issued by the Board of Secondary Education that DSE is equivalent to C.T., held that the Petitioners can be considered for engagement as Shikshya Sahayak and the District Project Coordinator was directed to take steps. Accordingly, the DPC, vide letter dated 24.06.2013, directed the Petitioners to execute an agreement on 29.06.2013 for engagement as Shikshya Sahayak, which they did out of compulsion . According to the Petitioners, their engagement as Shikshya Sahayak ought to have been made
1 2012 (I) OLR-839
Page 3 of 9
effective from the year 2006 as was done in the case of similarly placed candidates. It is the further case of the Petitioners that they cannot be blamed for the delay on the part of the authorities to obtain necessary clarification as law in this regard was already settled by this Court in the case of
Biswamber Behera (supra ) . It is also the case of the Petitioners that many similarly placed candidates were given appointment notionally from the year 2006 without any financial benefits.
Page 4 of 9
stated that the cases of other candidates cited by the Petitioners cannot be considered as they stand on entirely different footing. It is also stated that the Petitioners were working as Block Resource Teacher (BRT) under Sarva Sikshya Abhiyan prior to their engagement as Shikshya Sahayak. There was some issue in their joining as Shikshya Sahayak owing to their inability to resign as BRT for which time was extended to them to join as Shikshya Sahayak.
Page 5 of 9
facts of the present case. Elaborating his argument, Mr. Patnaik would submit that both the Petitioners were engaged as Block Resource Teachers which is also a schematic appointment under the Government. Under such circumstance, their engagement as Shikshya Sahayak cannot be made on retrospective basis from 2006 as it would lead to legal complications.
two years course of DSE conducted by the RCI, New Delhi is equivalent to that of C.T. examination conducted by the BSE.
Page 6 of 9
In the case of Biswamber Behera (supra) , the facts were little different in the sense that the Petitioners therein, after being engaged as Sikshya Sahayak had been disengaged for want of the requisite qualification. While holding that DSE is equivalent to C.T. course, this Court did not have the occasion to deal with a situation as obtaining in the present case.
Teachers. This is something that creates a legal tangle inasmuch as if the Petitioners were admittedly working as
Page 7 of 9
Block Resource Teachers prior to joining as Shikshya Sahayak, said latter engagement cannot obviously be antedated as it would coincide with their engagement as Block Resource Teachers. It is needless to mention that a person cannot be permitted to be engaged under two different schemes at the same time. It is would be an absurdity in law. Even by application of legal fiction such a course of action cannot be countenanced. Therefore, even assuming for a moment that the notification of BSE referred above can be made retrospectively applicable, the same would, in the circumstances described above, not enure to the benefit of the Petitioners. Therefore, without specifically deciding the question as to whether the notification dated 02.07.2012 can be made retrospectively applicable so as to antedate the engagement of the Petitioners as Shikshya Sahayak notionally from the year 2006, this Court holds that the peculiar facts of the present case would not permit the same. 10. Thus from a conspectus of analysis made hereinbefore, this Court holds that the Petitioners are not entitled to notional engagement as Shikshya Sahayak from the year 2006 as claimed by them. Resultantly, this Court finds no
Page 8 of 9
merit in the writ petitions, which are therefore, dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
……..…………………….
Sashikanta Mishra, Judge
BC. Tudu
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 12-Aug-2024 10:38:27
Page 9 of 9
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Petitioners, holding DSE qualification deemed equivalent to C.T., were entitled to notional engagement as Shikshya Sahayak from the year 2006.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Biswambar Behera v. State of Odisha and OthersRelied on¶8
2012 (I) OLR-839
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Smita Nayak
Smt. Reeta Nayak
State of Odisha
Sashikanta Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
