IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No. 1221 of 2024 State of Odisha and others …. Appellants -Versus- Priyanka Mohanty …. Respondent Advocates appeared in this case : For Appellants : Mr. Bimbisar Dash, AGA For Respondent : Mr. C.R. Pattnaik, Advocate CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing and judgment: 7th February, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ. 1. Mr. Dash, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of appellants (State). He submits, the facts are not in dispute except that respondent had applied for one of two posts, which did not require training. Her application was duly WA No.802 of 2023 Page 2 of 3 rejected. Hence, appeal has been preferred to demonstrate so against otherwise finding by the learned single Judge. 2. On query from Court Mr. Dash submits, respondent did get highest marks in category Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC) women and it is also true that she underwent training. 3. Mr. Pattnaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent and submits, the learned single Judge appreciated the facts to direct his client’s appointment as against post of contractual classical teacher. On query made he submits, it is a post that required trained candidates to apply. His client having had undergone the training had applied for the post. On further query Mr. Pattnaik refers to provisional tabulation sheet of applicants for the post of contractual teachers in response to advertisements dated 28th October to 21st November, 2014 and 13th January to 28th January, 2015. He submits, advertisement in the prior period were for trained candidates and the later advertisement, for candidates who were untrained. His client having had the training, applied against the first advertisement and on the second advertisement made, also thereunder. She secured highest marks in her category on both applications. WA No.802 of 2023 Page 3 of 3 4. It appears the appointing authority had considered respondent’s first application. However, respondent had also applied application for the other posts requiring trained candidates. 5. It appears, the learned single Judge appreciated fact of respondent having applied against the first advertisement and she secured highest marks, well above the cut-off mark relevant to her category. State (appellant) considered her second application. The situation is whether a candidate having more qualification than required can apply for the post advertised. There does not appear to be a bar. In any event she scored highest in her category on both her applications. As such, she is entitled to seek appointment in the post she preferred, being on her candidature against the first application. 6. In view of aforesaid, we do not find reason to interfere with impugned judgment. 7. The appeal is disposed of. (Arindam Sinha) Acting Chief Justice (M.S. Sahoo) Judge Sks