Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 570 (ORI)

Swadhin Kumar Barik v. State of Orissa

2006-07-28

M.M.DAS

body2006
JUDGMENT M. M. DAS, J. : In this batch of writ petitions, since a common question arises for determination, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in all the writ petitions were appli¬cants for being appointed as Swechha Sevi Sikhya Sahyak (for short, ‘S.S.S.S.’) and alleged to have been discriminated by the opp.parties in the process of selection for appointment to such posts. It is admitted that one of the qualifications required for being appointed as S.S.S.S. was that the candidate should be trained and must have obtained a certificate of Certified Train¬ing Course (C.T.). All the petitioners allege that they have obtained degree of Sikshya Visarad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and the Government of Orissa has considered such quali¬fication from the said Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as equivalent to C.T.. The petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions have further alleged that even though they posses such certificates, their cases have not been considered for being appointed as S.S.S.S. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the order dated 28.8.1998 of this Court passed in O.J.C. No.8080 of 1996 in which this Court held that the Hindi Examinations con¬ducted by the Hindi Vidyapitha, Deogarh (Bihar) and Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra has been recognized by the Government of Orissa as equivalent to B.Ed. course. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, relied upon a common judgment dated 6.5.1997 of a Division Bench of this Court passed in O.J.C. No.1259 of 1995 and a batch of writ peti¬tions in support of his contention that the question raised in the present writ petitions was directly in issue in the cases which were decided by the aforementioned common judgment dated 6.5.1997. He further submitted that in the said decision/judg¬ment, a Division Bench of this Court held that the action of the Government in issuing the letter directing not to take cognizance of the certificate of Sikshya Visarad issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad cannot be interfered with. He further submitted that in the said decision/judg¬ment, a Division Bench of this Court held that the action of the Government in issuing the letter directing not to take cognizance of the certificate of Sikshya Visarad issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad cannot be interfered with. He, therefore, submitted that since by the said common judgment dated 6.5.1997, the action of the Government deciding not to recognizance the Sikshya Visarad certificate as equivalent to C.T. has been rati¬fied, there is nothing left to be decided in the present cases and no fault can be found for not considering the case of the petitioners for appointment to the posts of S.S.S.S. as they do not possess the required qualification. 5. I have perused the order dated 28.8.1998 and the common judgment dated 6.5.1997 cited by the learned counsel for the parties. The order dated 28.8.1998 passed in O.J.C. No.8080 of 1996 relied upon by the petitioners is clearly not applicable to the facts of the present case as no question with regard to the validity of Sikshya Visarad certificate granted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was involved in the said case. However, in the common judgment dated 6.5.1997 passed in O.J.C. No.1259 of 1995 and a batch of other writ petitions, the specific challenge was made to the letter issued by the Additional Secretary asking not to take cognizance of the certificate of Sikshya Visarad issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and this Court after taking into consideration all the previous letters issued by the various authorities, concluded as follows : “.... In all the cases the petitioners have filed Xerox copies of that letter. Neither the office copy of the said letter nor any note is available in the file referred to in the said letter. In one of the copies of the said letter another file number was mentioned. No such file is available in the record of the Secretariat. In the Xerox copy of the said letter found from the office of the Director, Employment, there were unusual dis¬crepancies as has been explained by the Deputy Secretary in his affidavit dated 3.5.1997. In the circumstances, doubt expressed by the State Government about the authenticity of the said letter cannot be faulted with. In the Xerox copy of the said letter found from the office of the Director, Employment, there were unusual dis¬crepancies as has been explained by the Deputy Secretary in his affidavit dated 3.5.1997. In the circumstances, doubt expressed by the State Government about the authenticity of the said letter cannot be faulted with. We have not been able to persuade our¬selves to believe as to how the State Government would benefited or it would be put to any advantageous position by disputing issuance of the so-called Government letter No.3218/EYS dated 23.2.1981. As it appears to us, the matter was going on in a cavalier way and the scope to unearth origin of the so-called Government letter arose only when the Additional Secretary to the Government in the Department of School and Mass Education attend¬ed a meeting at Calcutta wherein it was commented that the State Government was not justified in declaring equivalence of the certificate of Sikhya Bisarad of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allaha¬bad to that of B.T.C./C.T. of Orissa. After his return, the Additional Secretary got the matter verified with reference to the records and when it was found that no such Government letter was ever issued, the impugned letter was issued stating, inter alia, not to take cognizance of the certificate of Sikhya Bisarad issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. xxx xxx xxx” 6. In view of the above, I am in agreement with the con¬tention of the learned counsel for the State that since this Court has already decided that certificate of Sikhya Visarad issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad cannot be taken cognizance of equivalent to C.T., I do not find any illegality to have been committed by the opp.parties in not considering the case of the petitioners for appointment to the posts of S.S.S.S. 7. Though it was submitted at the Bar that under similar circumstances, in a previous writ petition, I had held that the certificate of Sikhya Visarad issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammel¬an, Allahabad can be construed to be equivalent to Certified Training Course (C.T.), I make it clear that if such a conclusion was arrived at by me in any previously disposed of writ petition, the same was done for the reason that the judgment dated 6.5.1997 passed in OJC No.1259 of 1995 and a batch of writ petitions was neither placed before me nor was referred to by the learned counsel for the State. Since the above judgment was passed by a Division Bench, this Court is bound by the conclusions/ratio of the said judgment. 8. In the result, all the writ petitions are dismissed being devoid of merit but in the circumstances without any costs. Petitions dismissed.