Safiya Malik

The Orissa High Court has set aside a decision that disqualified candidates holding a two-year B.Ed (Special Education) degree from applying for Junior Teacher (Schematic) posts. The case revolved around the interpretation of eligibility criteria outlined in a recruitment notice dated September 10, 2023, which referenced an outdated National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) notification from 2010. The court found that reliance on an obsolete notification led to the unjustified disqualification of candidates who had pursued the same qualification but over an extended duration as mandated from the academic year 2015-16 onward.

The recruitment process was initiated by the School and Mass Education Department of Odisha to fill 20,000 Junior Teacher (Schematic) posts across primary and upper primary schools. The eligibility criteria outlined in the recruitment notice specified that candidates applying for Category-2 (for classes VI to VIII) must possess:

“Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed (Special Education).”

The appellant, who held a two-year B.Ed (Special Education) degree, was disqualified on the grounds that the recruitment criteria specifically required a one-year course. However, the one-year course had been phased out in 2014, and from the academic year 2015-16, the course duration was extended to two years.

The appellant argued that this disqualification was unreasonable, as the qualification remained fundamentally the same, with only the duration being altered. He also contended that NCTE had clarified in various correspondences that the prescribed eligibility should be treated as a minimum qualification rather than a rigid requirement.

The government countered that the recruitment notice explicitly specified a one-year B.Ed (Special Education) qualification. It maintained that candidates who had completed a two-year course applied with full knowledge of the stated requirement and could not subsequently challenge their disqualification. Furthermore, the government asserted that the eligibility criterion for Special B.Ed was specific and should not be interpreted to include alternative qualifications.

The appellant presented evidence, including correspondence between candidates and authorities, which demonstrated that official responses to inquiries about the eligibility of two-year B.Ed (Special Education) holders had been inconsistent. In one instance, a candidate sought clarification on whether they could apply despite holding a two-year B.Ed (Special Education) degree, and the response affirmed their eligibility. This response played a critical role in the appellant’s argument, suggesting that there was confusion within the department regarding the eligibility criteria.

The appellant also pointed to a letter dated May 14, 2024, issued by NCTE to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the department, which referenced amendments and notifications from NCTE in 2011, 2014, 2019, and 2021 regarding minimum qualifications for teachers. Despite these developments, the recruitment notice of September 10, 2023, continued to reference the outdated 2010 notification, creating a conflict between contemporary academic requirements and the recruitment process.

The court examined the recruitment notice and its reliance on the outdated 2010 NCTE notification, stating:

“We have not been able to see why the department resorted to be guided by the notification issued in year 2010. Said notification gave several eligibility criteria on qualification. One of them was regarding having B.Ed. Special Education qualification, at that time available on a 1-year course. This qualification one could obtain only up to year 2014, after which the same qualification could only be had by undergoing a two years’ course.”

Addressing the issue of ambiguity in the department’s communications, the court noted:

“The NCTE was consistent in all correspondence originating from it that the requirement was on minimum qualification.”

The court also took into consideration that the department had sought clarifications from NCTE regarding the eligibility of two-year B.Ed (Special Education) holders. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary had raised concerns about the fairness of disqualifying candidates with a longer course duration, as reflected in a letter dated August 5, 2024:

“It may not be justifiable that while one-year B.Ed. (Special Education) is allowed for posting as a teacher, degree with a longer course duration is not allowed.”

The court further observed that despite this clarification from within the department itself, the authorities had continued to reject candidates with a two-year B.Ed (Special Education) qualification. This contradiction was seen as an arbitrary application of rules that ignored contemporary academic standards and procedural fairness.

The court also examined the broader implications of this disqualification, including its impact on candidates who had obtained their B.Ed (Special Education) degrees after 2015. The recruitment notice required that candidates be between 18 and 38 years of age at the time of application. This implied that those who had pursued the longer two-year course in accordance with revised academic norms would be systematically excluded from consideration, despite possessing equivalent qualifications.

Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the court observed the principle that recruitment must align with prevailing legal and academic frameworks, rather than outdated notifications. The court considered precedents related to the interpretation of essential qualifications and held that procedural irregularities must not disadvantage eligible candidates.

The court ultimately reversed the judgment of the single judge and directed that the appellant’s name be included in the final merit list for consideration in the recruitment process. The directive stated:

“Prayer of appellant made in his writ petition is, inter alia, for inclusion of his name in final merit list dated 5th August, 2024, is allowed for onward action on appointment to be taken pursuant to recruitment notice dated 10th September, 2023.”

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha and Others
Case Number: W.A. No. 05 of 2025
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Arindam Sinha, and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

[Read/Download order]