AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
 Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard Ms. S. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Ramakanta Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Jena, learned
Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Department.
The petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks direction to the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of
Headmaster Level-IV of Orissa Elementary cadre, from the date the private opposite party no.5-Umadevi Das was promoted vide Annexure-3, with
all service and financial benefits.
Ms. S. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, being acquired HSC qualification along with ET
qualification and rendered more than 13 years of service in a particular post, due to non-availability of qualified candidates, she is eligible for promotion
to the post of Headmaster at par with opposite party no.5-Umadevi Das. Non-extension of such benefits amounts to arbitrary and inreasonable
exercise of power by the authority. Therefore, she has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
Mr. S. Jena, learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Department contended that the petitioner does not possess requisite
qualification to be considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster. Therefore, the benefit claimed by the petitioner has not been extended to her.
Having regard to the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court finds that the Government of
Odisha in School and Mass Education Department issued a notification on 21.05.2008, which has been annexed as Annexure-A/4 to the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.4. In the same, it has been stated that in Rule-11 after sub-rule(1), the sub-rules (i)(a) and (b) have been
inserted, and after sub-rule (2), clauses (a) and (b) have been inserted and in proviso thereto it has been indicted that in case of non-availability of
adequate number of persons for promotion to Level-III all the candidates having rendered 13 years of service in Level-IV & V taken together shall
also be considered for promotion against the remaining vacancies. It is stated that as per the guidelines, one must have passed High School
Certificate/Higher Secondary (10+2) Examination with Certified Teachers Training course or equivalent examination from a recognized Board or
University in order to be eligible for the vacancies under sub-clause (1)(a) or rule-6. It is also contended that the petitioner, having passed High School
Certificate and got ET qualification and rendered more than 13 years of service, is eligible to be considered for promotion. But it has been clarified on
05.09.2012 vide Annexure-B/4, which has been issued in implementation of order dated 23.12.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14979 of
2010, that since ET qualification is not equivalent to CT/B.Ed., teachers of Level-V having ET qualification are not eligible for promotion in
Elementary Cadre. As the petitioner does not possess the minimum required qualification, as has been clarified vide letter dated 05.09.2012, she is not
eligible for such promotion. In such view of the matter, the relief sought in the writ petition cannot be granted.
The writ petition thus merits no consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules...
……………………………