‘She Has Been A Relentless Fighter’ | Orissa High Court Quashes Faulty Rejection After 11 Years | Certiorari and Mandamus Direct Appointment of PwD Candidate Under Teacher Recruitment Guidelines
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad has held that a physically handicapped candidate, who possesses the requisite educational qualifications, cannot be denied appointment under the teacher recruitment process on hyper-technical interpretations of guidelines. The Court quashed the order rejecting her candidature and issued a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to appoint her against any available vacancy within eight weeks. The Court clarified that such appointment would have only prospective effect, without retrospective financial or service benefits.
The writ petition was filed by an aspirant seeking appointment as a Sikshya Sahayak under the teacher recruitment process pursuant to a notification dated 11 September 2014. The petitioner possessed the qualifications of Orissa Teacher Eligibility Test (OTET-I) and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) and had been a first-class student from matriculation through B.Ed. Additionally, she was certified to have a 45% ocular disability, thereby falling under the category of physically handicapped candidates.
Upon verification, her name initially appeared in the list of trained eligible applicants during 2014–15 at serial no. 191. Subsequently, her name was removed from that list despite her B.Ed. qualification and was placed at serial no. 51 under the category of untrained CT candidates. The petitioner challenged this reclassification in W.P.(C) No. 52 of 2015, which was dismissed on 4 October 2016. However, she was granted liberty to pursue remedies before the competent authority.
Acting upon such liberty, the petitioner submitted a representation on 10 February 2017, which was disposed of on 20 May 2017 without granting relief. During the pendency of this representation, the Board of Secondary Education promulgated revised guidelines for the OTET 2019 by way of a corrigendum dated 22 November 2018. These guidelines stipulated that graduation with 50% marks and B.Ed. from an NCTE-recognized institution would be sufficient qualification for appointment as a teacher for Classes I to IV, subject to completion of a six-month bridge course within two years of appointment.
Despite this relaxation, her candidature was not considered under the new guidelines. She filed W.P.(C) No. 28242 of 2023 challenging the rejection order of 20 May 2017. By order dated 12 February 2025, a coordinate Bench quashed that order and remitted the matter for reconsideration. However, by office order dated 26 March 2025, the authorities again rejected her claim, leading to the present third round of litigation.
The petitioner contended that she was fully qualified under the recruitment norms and was entitled to consideration under Guidelines 2, 7, and 8 of the 2014 instructions, particularly given her physical disability. She argued that despite judicial directions, the authorities repeated the same rejection without proper application of mind, thereby prejudicing her rights.
The Additional Government Advocate opposed the petition, asserting that Guideline 2 permitted OTET-I candidates only under the CT category and OTET-II candidates under the B.Ed. category, both being mutually exclusive. As the petitioner had OTET-I, she was considered under CT but, being trained, was not eligible as untrained. It was argued that she could not derive any benefit under Guidelines 7 and 8 and that, given the lapse of time and periodic vacancies, her claim could not now be accommodated.
The petitioner relied on her disability certificate and prior classification under the physically handicapped category, asserting that she was entitled to be considered under the beneficial provisions for disadvantaged groups. She maintained that the rejection order failed to recognize this and was contrary to earlier judicial directions.
Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad recorded several detailed observations:
“Admittedly, petitioner possesses OTET-I and B.Ed. There is no dispute that petitioner falls in the category of Physically Handicapped, inasmuch as she has visual impairment of 45%, 40% being the minimum prescribed for availing the benefits.” The Court noted her consistent academic excellence and remarked that “a meritorious candidate coupled with the Physical Handicap has to be treated with due leniency, of course within the frame work of law.”
The Court examined Guidelines 2, 7, and 8, reproducing them in full:
“2. OTET-I Passed candidate can apply for CT category & OTET-II passed candidates can apply for B.Ed. Category only.
7. OTET-1 passed untrained SC, ST and PH, candidate can apply for CT posts.
8. OTET-II passed Graduates of SC, ST & PH category can apply for CT posts.”
Justice Shripad stated: “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.” The Court emphasized that these provisions aimed at special treatment for oppressed classes, including physically handicapped candidates.
With regard to Guideline 7, the Court observed: “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.”
On the issue of disability, the Court rejected the State’s contention: “Firstly, the very application of the petitioner mentions reserved category of handicap. Secondly, the very selection list specifically mentions that the candidature of the petitioner is considered under PH category. Thirdly, in W.P.(C) No.28242 of 2023…the Physical Handicap of the petitioner has been specifically treated by the Coordinate Bench.”
On the delay, the Court recorded: “The time spent in the legal battles fought one after another, cannot be a ground for denying relief to the victorious party. Fruits of successful litigation, howsoever long the same be fought, ordinarily should reach the hands of winner party. Otherwise faith of right thinking section of people would be shaken and that would not augur well to the rule of law.”
The Court concluded that remanding the matter again would serve no purpose: “Remand after remand would disillusion the litigants, to say the least.”
The High Court issued the following directions:
The Court declared that “this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order.” Further, “A Writ of Mandamus follows to Opposite Parties to select and appoint the petitioner to the post in question in any of the vacancies and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks.”
The Court clarified that the appointment would only be prospective: “It is made clear that such appointment shall be with the prospective effect and that petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit, monetary or service, for the period gone by.”
The judgment concluded with the directive that the web copy be acted upon by all concerned and that there would be no order as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: M/s. C. Nayak & R.K. Nayak, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. S.K. Jee, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Prajnya Parimita Barik v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 14083 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad
