Disposed¶7

State of Odisha v. Priyanka Mohanty

Orissa HC7 Feb 2025WA/1221/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack — Writ Appeal disposed of (7 February 2025) — State of Odisha v. Priyanka Mohanty — contractual classical teacher recruitment, advertisements 2014-2015 — overqualified (trained) candidate not barred from applying for advertised post — SEBC women category highest marks on both applications — learned single Judge's direction for appointment upheld — no interference — Arindam Sinha, ACJ; M.S. Sahoo, Judge.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of without interference with the impugned judgment; the learned single Judge's appreciation directing the respondent's appointment against the post of contractual classical teacher thereby stands. ¶7

State of Odisha Vs Priyanka Mohanty — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WA No. 1221 of 2024

¶3

State of Odisha and others

¶4

Appellants

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

…. Priyanka Mohanty Respondent

¶7

Advocates appeared in this case :

¶8

For Appellants : Mr. Bimbisar Dash, AGA

¶9

For Respondent : Mr. C.R. Pattnaik, Advocate

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶12

AND

¶13

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶16

Date of hearing and judgment: 7^th February, 2025

¶17

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶18

ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.

¶19

1. Mr. Dash, learned advocate, Additional Government

¶20

Advocate appears on behalf of appellants (State). He submits, the facts are not in dispute except that respondent had applied for one of two posts, which did not require training. Her application was duly

¶21

Page 1 of 3

¶22

rejected. Hence, appeal has been preferred to demonstrate so against otherwise finding by the learned single Judge.

¶23

2. On query from Court Mr. Dash submits, respondent did get highest marks in category Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC) women and it is also true that she underwent training.

¶24

3. Mr. Pattnaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent and submits, the learned single Judge appreciated the facts to direct his client’s appointment as against post of contractual classical teacher. On query made he submits, it is a post that required trained candidates to apply. His client having had undergone the training had applied for the post. On further query Mr. Pattnaik refers to provisional tabulation sheet of applicants for the post of contractual teachers in response to advertisements dated 28^th October to 21^st November, 2014 and 13^th January to 28^th January, 2015. He submits, advertisement in the prior period were for trained candidates and the later advertisement, for candidates who were untrained. His client having had the training, applied against the first advertisement and on the second advertisement made, also thereunder. She secured highest marks in her category on both applications.

¶25

WA No.802 of 2023 Page 2 of 3

¶26

4. It appears the appointing authority had considered

¶27

respondent’s first application. However, respondent had also applied application for the other posts requiring trained candidates.

¶28

5. It appears, the learned single Judge appreciated fact of respondent having applied against the first advertisement and she secured highest marks, well above the cut-off mark relevant to her category. State (appellant) considered her second application. The situation is whether a candidate having more qualification than required can apply for the post advertised. There does not appear to be a bar. In any event she scored highest in her category on both her applications. As such, she is entitled to seek appointment in the post she preferred, being on her candidature against the first application.

¶29

6. In view of aforesaid, we do not find reason to interfere with impugned judgment.

¶30

7. The appeal is disposed of.

¶31

(Arindam Sinha) Acting Chief Justice

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Sks Date: 10-Feb-2025 11:36:33

¶34

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge