'She Has Been A Relentless Fighter': Orissa High Court Orders Appointment Of PwD Candidate As Teacher 11 Yrs After Faulty Rejection
In a major relief to a female aspirant with physical disability (PwD), the Orissa High Court has ordered the State to appoint her as 'Sikshya Sahayak'/teacher more than a decade after her application for selection to the post was wrongly rejected.Acknowledging her long fight for justice, the Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad remarked –“Petitioner was before this Court twice earlier...
In a major relief to a female aspirant with physical disability (PwD), the Orissa High Court has ordered the State to appoint her as 'Sikshya Sahayak'/teacher more than a decade after her application for selection to the post was wrongly rejected.
Acknowledging her long fight for justice, the Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad remarked –
“Petitioner was before this Court twice earlier and before the authorities thrice. She has been a relentless fighter for justice. 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.”
Briefly put, the petitioner after qualifying Odisha Teachers Eligibility Test (OTET-I) and B.Ed., applied for engagement as a 'Sikshya Sahayak' as per notification dated 11.09.2014. Admittedly, she has 45% vision impairment and thus, possesses Physical Disability Certificate. Upon verification, she was placed under the list of eligible 'trained' applicants during the year 2014-15.
However, to her dismay, her name was struck off from the category of eligible trained applicants, though she possessed B.Ed. qualification. She was later placed under the category of 'untrained' CT candidates. Though she challenged the same through a writ petition, but in vain.
She made a representation dated 10.02.2017 to the authority, which did not yield any result. Therefore, she challenged dismissal order through another writ petition. Earlier this year, a Single Bench quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration by the authority. Unfortunately, her claim was rejected again, compelling her to file this petition.
Justice Shripad at the very outset reminded that a meritorious candidate having physical disability has to be treated with due leniency within the permissible framework of law. However, the impugned order, he said, does not reflect the above approach even though the petitioner is currently in the third round of litigation before the High Court.
The Court examined the guidelines which led to this protracted litigation. One clause of the guidelines read “OTET-I Passed candidate can apply for CT category & OTET II passed candidates can apply for B.Ed. Category only” and another clause provided “OTET-1 passed untrained SC, ST and PH, candidate can apply for CT posts.”
As stated above, the petitioner had qualified OTET-I along with B.Ed. and she was a candidate having physical disability. The authorities deprived her from the CT post on the ground that she was a 'trained' OTET-I candidate having physical disability. Thus, she was held to be ineligible as per the second clause since it required OTET-I passed 'untrained' SC/ST/PH candidate to apply for CT posts.
Under the second clause, the Judge exclaimed, when an untrained OTET-I can apply for CT posts, there is absolutely no rhyme or reason as to why a trained candidate is to be excluded from applying. He further observed –
“A person cannot be deprived of a right otherwise available to him/her on the ground that he/she is more meritorious because of training. The expression “untrained SC, ST and PH Candidates” employed in this Guideline should not be literally interpreted, but it has to be given a constructive and purposeful interpretation. Otherwise, merit will be at casualty and nothing else.”
The government made another contention that though the petitioner has physical disability, she had not applied under that category and therefore, her candidature cannot be considered. However, the Bench outrightly dismissed such argument.
“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 WP(C) No.28242 of 2023 disposed of 12.02.2005, the Physical Handicap of the petitioner has been specifically treated by the Coordinate Bench,” it held.
Lastly, the Additional Government Advocate submitted that due to such unreasonable delay, the petitioner cannot be accommodated in the select list of 2014-15, since more than a decade has elapsed. Notwithstanding such contention, Justice Shripad ordered the State to give the petitioner appointment at the earliest, especially taking into account the long legal battle she had to fight for claiming her legitimate right.
“It is a matter of common knowledge that vacancies do occur because of retirement, resignation, removal and death. In one of such vacancy petitioner needs to be accommodated, since impugned action of the OPs is faltered. No purpose would be served by again remanding the matter. Remand after remand would disillusion the litigants, to say the least,” he added.
However, it was clarified 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 which has already elapsed.
Case Title: Prajnya Parimita Barik v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) No. 14083 of 2025
Date of Judgment: August 22, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. C. Nayak & R.K. Nayak, Advocates
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S.K. Jee, Addl. Govt. Advocate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 110