Bhubaneswar: The Orissa High Court ordered the state government to appoint a visually challenged woman as a school teacher on August 22, nearly a decade after her application for the post was wrongly rejected.
A bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad noted that Prajnya Parimita Barik, the woman who had unsuccessfully applied for the post of a ‘Sikshya Sahayak’ in 2014, had previously approached the high court twice and gone before the authorities three times.
“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 the right-thinking section of people would be shaken and that would not augur well to the rule of law,” the high court said.
In 2014, Prajnya Parimita Barik had applied for the ‘Sikshya Sahayak’’s post with disability category as she had 45% vision impairment.
But the authorities struck her name off the list of eligible trained applicants, though she possessed a B.Ed or Bachelor of Education degree. Instead, she was later categorised as ‘untrained’ CT candidates. She challenged the decision before the high court but her application was turned down.
{{/usCountry}}But the authorities struck her name off the list of eligible trained applicants, though she possessed a B.Ed or Bachelor of Education degree. Instead, she was later categorised as ‘untrained’ CT candidates. She challenged the decision before the high court but her application was turned down.
{{/usCountry}}She made a representation to the officials in 2017, and then approached the high court again, challenging the dismissal of her representation.
Earlier this year, a single bench quashed the order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration by the authority. But her claim was again rejected, compelling her to file another petition.
In his verdict, justice Shripad underlined that a meritorious candidate with 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 was in the third round of litigation before the high court
During the hearing, the high court observed that when an untrained teacher could apply for CT posts, there was absolutely no rhyme or reason why a trained candidate had to be excluded from applying.
“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 judge said.
The government sought to reason that the petitioner did not apply under the category for persons with disability and therefore, her candidature could be considered.
However, the bench dismissed the 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,” it held.
The government next submitted that the petitioner could not be accommodated in the select list of 2014-15, as more than a decade had elapsed.
However, the HC rejected the contention and ordered the state to provide the petitioner with her appointment letter at the earliest, particularly considering the lengthy legal battle she had to fight to claim her legitimate right.
“It is a matter of common knowledge that vacancies do occur because of retirement, resignation, removal and death. No purpose would be served by again remanding the matter. Remand after remand would disillusion the litigants, to say the least,” the high court said.
The bench however clarified that the candidate’s appointment will be with the ‘prospective effect’ and that she would not be entitled to any benefit, monetary or service, for the period which has already elapsed.