Disposed

Samai @ Samay Marandi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC25 Apr 2024WP(C)/4534/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions by Ol-Chiki Community Mobilisers seeking regularization as Junior Teachers under notifications of 2019 and 2022. The State relied on a 21.02.2024 notification permitting regularization subject to OTET qualification. The Court permitted petitioners to apply before the newly impleaded department, which must decide within three months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to apply to Opposite Party No.8 within three weeks for consideration of regularization per notification dated 21.02.2024, with decision required within three months.

Samai @ Samay Marandi Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) Nos.20870 of 2022, 4534 & 11456 of 2020 &

¶3

W.P.(C) No.7296 of 2021

¶4

W.P.(C) Nos.20870 of 2022

¶5

Sunil Kumar Beshra …. Petitioner Mr.B.K. Behera-1, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Others
…. Opposite Parties
Mr. S. K. Samal, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
25.04.2024
Order No.
16. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶8

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. On the oral prayer made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, he is permitted to implead ST & SC Development, M & BCW Department, Govt. of Odisha as Opposite Party No.8 in Court.

¶9

3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶10

“A. Admit this writ application.

¶11

// 2 //

¶12

B. As to why the notification dated 21.06.2019 and 30.07.2022 under Annexure-3 & 12 issued by the opp. party no.3 shall not be applicable in case of the petitioners, and,

¶13

C. As to why the order passed by the opp. party no.4 the Collector under Annexure-6 shall not be declared as illegal, improper and unjust, and.

¶14

D. As to why the opposite parties shall not be directed to engage the petitioners as Junior Teacher (JTs) as per the notification under Annexure-12 and enhanced their remuneration from the appointment.

¶15

E. As to why the opposite parties shall not be directed to regularize the service of the petitioners as equal to junior Teachers (MLE) Shiksha Sahayaks (SSs) as per the Notification No.16634 dated 30.07.2022 issued by the Govt. School & Mass Education Department, for sanction 3328 umbers of Temporary post of Assistant Teachers in the grade of LevelV(A) of the Elementary Cadre, under Annexure-12 & 13 and enhanced their remuneration from their appointment”.

¶16

4. It is contended that basing on the advertisement issued by the District Project Office, DPEP (SS), Mayurbhanj on 24.08.2006 so enclosed vide Annexure-BSeries to the Addl. Affidavit filed on 31.07.2023, Petitioners were engaged as Community Mobiliser with honorarium of Rs.1000/- per month.

¶17

4.1. It is contended that pursuant to the said advertisement, Petitioners were selected and engaged vide order of engagement issued under Annexure-2-Series.

¶18

4.2 . It is contended that though Opposite Party No.3 vide its Notification dtd.21.06.2019 under Annexure-3 and Government in the School & Mass Education Department vide its letter dtd.30.07.2022 under Annexure-12, created 3328 numbers of temporary post of Asst. Teacher in the grade of Level-V(A) of the elementary cadre, but Petitioner’s claim for regularization was never considered.

¶19

Page 2 of 6

¶20

// 3 //

¶21

4 . 3 . It is also contended that subsequently Department of School & Mass Education also issued a Resolution on 02.08.2022 under Annexure-13 prescribing therein the career advancement policy of MLE and Sikhya Sahayaks engaged under Multi Lingual Education Programme.

¶22

4.4 . It is contended that on the face of the notification issued by Opposite Party No.3 on 21.06.2019 under Annexure-3 and the letter issued by the Department on 30.07.2022 as well as the resolution issued by the Department on 02.08.2022 when no step was taken to regularize the services of the Petitioner, the present writ petition was filed inter alia with the prayer as indicated hereinabove.

¶23

4.5. It is contended that since the Petitioners are all continuing as a Ol-Chicki Community Mobiliser in terms of the advertisement issued under Annexure-B-Series to the affidavit and consequential order of engagement issued under Annexure-2-Series, they are eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization in terms of the letter issued by the Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure3 and letter issued by the Department under Annexure-12.

¶24

4.6. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction be issued to Opposite Party No.4 to regularize the services of the Petitioner.

¶25

Page 3 of 6

¶26

// 4 //

¶27

5. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that since Petitioners were all engaged as OlChiki Community Mobilisers with honorarium of Rs.1,000/- per month which was enhanced from time to time on consolidated basis, they are not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization as prayed for. However, considering the claim of the Petitioners and similarly situated Mobilisers so engaged, Govt. in the ST & SC Development Department has taken a policy decision with issuance of the notification on 21.02.2024. In the said notification it has been decided to regularize the services of these petitioners subject to the following conditions:-

¶28

“a. 73 Multilingual Education (Education Volunteers) having +2 or above with D.EL. Ed/Ct qualification and also passed the OTET Examination shall only be regularized subject to verification of their relevant documents pertaining to their educational qualification and date of birth as Tribal language Teacher (MLE).

¶29

b. They shall be regularized prospectively in Level-6 of ORSP Rules of 2017 against the existing vacant / created posts of Tribal Language Teachers (MLE) in ST & SC Development, M&BCW Department.

¶30

c. They shall be considered as a separate cadre for Tribal Language Teachers (MLE) in ST & SC Development, M&BCW Department.

¶31

d. For the remaining Multilingual Education (Education Volunteers), a timeline of a maximum of up to three years from the date of this notification shall be allowed to acquire the required qualifications of D.EL.ED/CT, +2, and OTET for the consideration of their regularization provided

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

// 5 //

¶34

that they have not crossed the age of 60 years by the date their case is being considered for regularization”.

¶35

5.1. Mr. Samal, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State contended that even though Petitioners have the requisite qualification with CT, but since they have not passed the OTET, they are not the eligible to get the benefit of notification dtd.21.02.2024 unless and until Petitioners acquire the OTET qualification.

¶36

5.2 . It is contended that only after acquiring the OTET qualification, claim of the Petitioners for their regularization will be considered in terms of the notification issued by the Department on 21.02.2024.

¶37

6. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner relying on the notification contended that since Petitioners have the requisite qualification save and except OTET, appropriate direction be issued to regularize their services with a condition that they will acquire the OTET within a stipulated time period.

¶38

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the writ petition permits the Petitioners to make appropriate application before Opposite Party No.8 to consider their claim for regularization in terms of Notification dtd.21.02.2024 by permitting them to acquire the OTET within a stipulated time period. It is observed that if such an application is moved before Opposite Party No.8 within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of

¶39

Page 5 of 6

¶40

// 6 //

¶41

receipt of the order, a lawful decision be taken on the claim of the Petitioners within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such application.

¶42

8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all Writ Petitions stand disposed of.

¶43

9. Photocopy of the order be placed in connected cases.

¶44

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

¶45

Subrat

¶46

Judge

¶47

Signature Not Verified

¶48

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 09-Jul-2025 13:12:45

¶49

Page 6 of 6

Samai @ Samay Marandi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samai @ Samay Marandi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Bhainsa Vs State of Odisha

Bisuman Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Bharttruhari Sahu Vs Principal Secy. to Govt., Sc and St Development Dept., Bbsr

Nidhi Meher Vs State of Odisha

Rabinarayan Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Tarini Thakurani Mahavidyalaya Vs Sidharth Kumar Das