ARUN KUMAR NAHAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ appeal the judgment dated 27.3.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.13565 of 2008 is assailed.

(2.) THE appellants are admittedly working as Hindi Teachers, Classical Teachers and Physical Education Teachers in different aided educational institutions. Being aggrieved by the Clause 4-C of the admission brochure under Annexure-7 inviting applications from untrained graduate teachers for taking admission in B.Ed. course for the session 2008-09, a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.13565 of 2008 was filed calling in question the said clause and also clause 2.3 of the corresponding advertisement. Admittedly, in consonance with the aforesaid clause, the appellants had opted to take admission as in-service candidates and after their names were sponsored, they took admission and prosecuted B.Ed. course. Respondent no .6, as petitioner, filed the aforesaid writ petition, inter alia, challenging the brochure condition mainly on the ground that granting permission to in-service Hindi Teachers, Classical Teachers and Physical Education Teachers to take B.Ed. training was unwarranted and contrary to the rules and notifications issued by the Government. It is further contended that seats in B.Ed. course being limited, granting such privilege to Hindi Teachers, Classical Teachers and Physical Education Teachers infringes upon the rights of the Graduate teachers holding Training Graduate posts. It is also stated that training qualification was a must for a Graduate who holds the post of Trained Graduate teacher, where as such qualification is not necessary to persons holding the posts of Hindi/Sanskrit and Physical Education Teachers. Considering the fact that only Graduates with B.Ed. training are eligible to hold the post meant for Trained Graduate Teachers, the Government had fixed the dead-line and issued a notification that continuance of untrained graduate teachers bereft of B.Ed. training against Trained Graduate posts would entail de-recognition of the institution in question. Further, being conscious of the fact that many untrained teachers are holding Trained Graduate posts, the Government took a further decision to give them opportunity to undergo B.Ed. training on being sponsored by their employees, of course on seniority basis. Unfortunately, however while issuing the advertisement inviting applications for admission to B.Ed. course issued for the year 2008-09 the said decision of the Government was not kept in mind. It stipulated that un-trained teachers posted against sanctioned yardstick post in Government/Government aided/recognized High Schools appointed on regular basis and teachers appointed regular post in elementary schools, would be eligible to prosecute B.Ed. training as inservice teachers. Such a condition, it was submitted, is not tenable in law and was contrary to the object sought to be achieved. Consequently a prayer was made to quash the said broacher condition as well as the corresponding clause in the advertisement issued for taking admission in B.Ed. course as in-service candidates for the year 2008-09.