Dhaneswar Das & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11532 Ori

Orissa High Court

Dhaneswar Das & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opposite ... on 19 December, 2025

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

 W.P.(C) Nos.32208/2023, 27325/2023, 30969/2023,
30974/2023, 30977/2023, 31468/2023, 31471/2023,
31476/2023,32199/2023,32201/2023,32205/2023,33
078/2023 & 25894/2024


    In W.P.(C) No.32208/2023

    Dhaneswar Das & Ors          ...          Petitioners

                        -versus-

    State of Odisha & others        ...       Opposite Parties

      For Petitioners          : Mr. J.K.Rath,
                                 Senior Advocate,
                                 Mr. B.Satapathy, Advocate
     For Opposite Parties      : Mr. S.N.Patnaik, A.G.A


   In W.P.(C) No.27325/2023

   Jayanta Kumar Biswal & Ors           ...     Petitioners

                        -versus-

   State of Odisha & others        ...        Opposite Parties

     For Petitioner         : Mr. S.B.Jena, Advocate


     For Opposite Parties     : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.


    In W.P.(C) No.30969/2023

    Jayaram Sahu & Ors          ...           Petitioners


                                                    Page 1 of 28
                      -versus-

 State of Odisha & others         ...       Opposite Parties

  For Petitioners         : Mr. B.Satapathy, Advocate

  For Opposite Parties    : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.


  In W.P.(C) No.30974/2023

 Bhaskar Chandra Sahoo & Ors ...            Petitioners

                     -versus-

 State of Odisha & others         ...       Opposite Parties

   For Petitioners              :Mr. B.Satapathy, Advocate

   For Opposite Parties         : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.


  In W.P.(C) No.30977/2023

  Sashikanta Jena & Ors               ...   Petitioners

                     -versus-

 State of Odisha & others         ...       Opposite Parties


   For Petitioners          :     Mr. B.Satapathy, Advocate

   For Opposite Parties     : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.


In W.P.(C) No.31468/2023

 Bijaya Kumar Choudhury & Ors ...            Petitioners


                                                  Page 2 of 28
                       -versus-

 State of Odisha & others        ...     Opposite Parties


  For Petitioners                :Mr. B.Satapathy, Advocate


  For Opposite Parties   : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.


In W.P.(C) No.31471/2023

 Akshaya Kumar Mohapatra & Ors... Petitioners

                      -versus-

 State of Odisha & others        ...     Opposite Parties


    For Petitioners         : Mr. S.Satapathy, Advocate

    For Opposite Parties    : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.


In W.P.(C) No.31476/2023

 Janaki Pradhan & Ors       ...        Petitioners

                      -versus-

 State of Odisha & others        ...     Opposite Parties


    For Petitioners         : Mr. B.Satapathy, Advocate


    For Opposite Parties    : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.




                                                Page 3 of 28
 In W.P.(C) No.32199/2023

 Debendranath Pradhan & Ors ...           Petitioners


                      -versus-

 State of Odisha & others        ...    Opposite Parties


    For Petitioners         : Mr. B.Satapathy, Advocate

    For Opposite Parties    : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.


In W.P.(C) No.32201/2023

 Purna Chandra Dash & Ors        ...    Petitioners


                      -versus-

 State of Odisha & others        ...    Opposite Parties


    For Petitioners         : Mr. B.Satapathy, Advocate

   For Opposite Parties     : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.


In W.P.(C) No.32205/2023

 Managobinda Dash & Ors          ...     Petitioners


                      -versus-

 State of Odisha & others        ...    Opposite Parties


    For Petitioners         : Mr. B.Satapathy, Advocate


                                              Page 4 of 28
      For Opposite Parties               : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.

In W.P.(C) No.33078/2023

 Jnanendra Kumar Das & Ors                      ...      Petitioners


                               -versus-

 State of Odisha & others                   ...        Opposite Parties


     For Petitioners                   : Mr. B.Dash, Advocate

    For Opposite Parties               : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.


In W.P.(C) No.25894/2024

 Prashant Kumar Sahoo & Ors ...                            Petitioners


                               -versus-

 State of Odisha & others                   ...        Opposite Parties


     For Petitioners                   : Mr. B.Satapathy, Advocate

    For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         CORAM:
                       JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                          JUDGMENT

19.12.2025

Sashikanta Mishra,J. All these Writ Petitions involve common

questions of fact and law and being heard together, are

disposed of by this common judgment.

2. For convenience and brevity, WP (C) no.-

32208/2023 is treated as the lead case for

consideration and discussion of the facts involved.

3. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking

the following relief:

"In the facts and circumstances of the case, the humble petitioners fervently pray this Hon'ble Court to be graciously pleased to issue notice to the opp. parties, call for relevant records and after hearing the counsel of parties, issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the impugned order No. 19613/SME dtd. 11.08.2023 under Annexure-1 and the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the Resolution bearing No. 25605 dtd. 26.12.2016 vide Annexure-4 to the writ application and the advertisement bearing No. 12511 dtd.26.12.2016 vide Annexure-10 issued by the Opp.party No.3, basing on such Resolution prescribing the upper age limit as 32 years in the place of 42 years and to extend the benefit of upper age limit to 42 years as one time measures to the petitioners and to issue engagement order in favour of the petitioners as Sikhya Sahayaks against the existing vacancies of Mayurbhanj district within a stipulated period.

And/ or pass such other order/ orders or direction/directions as deems fit and proper in the interest ofjustice;

And for this act of your kindness, the humble petitioners shall as in duty bound, ever pray."

4. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the

petitioners are all trained graduates and have passed

OTET. Pursuant to the resolution dated 26.12.2016 of

the Government of Odisha in the School and Mass

Education Department for selection/engagement of

Sikhya Sahayaks, an advertisement dated 26.12.2016

inviting applications was issued. The number of

vacancies so notified was 14087. The petitioners

having possessed the required qualifications submitted

their applications and after the selection process they

were placed in the select list. However, subsequently

the names of the petitioners found place in the district-

wise reject list on the ground of they being over-aged.

The petitioners approached this Court against the

rejection of their candidatures in W.P.(C). No. 40373 of

2021 inter alia, seeking a direction to the Opposite

Party authorities to consider their candidature in line

with the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this

Court in W.A. No. 701 of 2019 and batch. This Court,

by order dated 12.01.2022 directed the Commissioner-

cum-Secretary in the Department of School & Mass

Education to consider the case of the petitioners and to

pass a reasoned and speaking order within ten days.

By order dated 11.08.2023, the case of the petitioners

was rejected by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary.

The petitioners contend that the maximum age

for engagement of Sikhya Sahayaks, ever since the

scheme came into force in the year 2000 was 42 years

for general candidates with usual relaxation for

reserved category candidates till 2014. For the first

time in the notification published on 11.09.2014, the

maximum age was reduced to 35 years. The candidates

who could not apply pursuant to said notification

because of overage filed writ petitions before this Court

which were allowed. However, the writ petitions were

dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of parties,

against which the concerned petitioners filed writ

appeals being W.A. No. 701 of 2019 and batch. By

judgment dated 23.12.2020, the Division Bench while

setting aside the orders passed in the writ applications,

held that since there were unfilled vacancies of posts of

Sikhya Sahayaks available against which the

appellants could be accommodated, the authorities

were directed to accommodate the appellants against

the said vacant posts. Said judgment has been

complied with in the meantime.

The petitioners, despite being over-aged, applied

pursuant to notification dated 26.12.2016 on the

strength of interim orders passed by this Court in the

writ applications and were placed in the select list but

their candidature was finally rejected on the ground of

overage. Since the maximum age limit of 35 years as

per the previous notification dated 12.09.2014 was

interfered with, the petitioners had a legitimate

expectation that the Government would provide

relaxation in age for over-aged candidates in the

subsequent years. But the impugned advertisement

was published fixing the upper age as 32 years which

violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

It is further contended that rejection of the case of the

petitioners by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary is bad

in law as the grounds cited therein are not tenable.

The petitioners could not apply earlier because they

had not acquired OTET and could do so only after

acquiring the same. It is further claimed that the case

of the petitioners is almost identical to the cases

decided by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.

701 of 2019 and batch.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Opposite

Party No.1 resisting the writ application on the

principle of estoppel and limitation. It is stated that the

petitioners having participated in the selection process

and having become unsuccessful cannot question the

advertisement. Moreover, the present writ application

has been filed challenging the advertisement issued on

26.12.2016. It is further contended that the judgment

passed in Babita Satpathy v. State of Odisha, 2020

SCC OnLine Ori 921, is a judgment in personam and

not in rem and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim

parity with the appellants therein. Moreover, the said

case related to advertisement dated 12.09.2014

whereas the present case relates to advertisement

dated 26.12.2016. It is also stated that in another case

filed to challenge the advertisement dated 26.12.2016

being W.P.(C). No. 548 of 2017 (Banita Biswal Versus

State of Odisha) and batch, this Court dismissed the

writ application as being without merit. The case of the

present petitioners is squarely covered by the said

judgment for which the matter cannot be reagitated. It

is also stated that as per the settled position of law

unfilled vacancies cannot be filled up from the select

list unless there is provision for a waiting list. Since

the advertisement in question has already been given

effect to, changing the upper age limit would amount

to changing the rule of game after it has begun.

6. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to

the counter reiterating the basic stand taken in the

writ application. It is stated that as per the judgment

passed in Babita Satpathy (supra), the candidates

were engaged against backlog unfilled vacancies. The

case of the petitioners is identical to the situation

arising in Babita Satpathy (supra). It is further

stated that the maximum age was fixed to 42 years for

a long time and was changed to 35 years in 2014-15.

The same has again been reduced to 32 years. Though

it is a policy decision of the Government yet the same

is arbitrary and in violation of the principles of equality

guaranteed under Articles 14,15 and 16 of the

Constitution of India. As per resolution dated

22.08.2023 for engagement as Junior Teacher

(schematic) the upper age limit has been fixed to 38

years.

7. Separate counter affidavit has been filed by the

DEO-District Project Coordinator (Opp. Party No.5).

The stand taken by Opposite Party No.1 in his counter

has more or less been reiterated including the principle

of estoppel and delay. It is stated that unless there is

provision for carrying forward the unfilled vacancies of

a particular recruitment year to the subsequent year,

the same cannot be filled up from the select list of the

previous year. The scheme of Sikhya Sahayak has been

abolished in the meantime with introduction of Junior

Teacher (Contractual) and Junior Teacher (Schematic)

for which the Government has published an

advertisement notifying 20,000 posts. It is also stated

that the ratio decided in Babita Satpathy (supra)

does not apply to the petitioners.

8. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder to the

counter filed by Opposite Party No.5, reiterating their

stand taken in the writ application and the earlier

rejoinder. It is stated that the upper age limit being

fixed to 42 in all advertisements issued from 2008 till

2013, the change brought about in 2014-15 and 2015-

16 is nothing but whimsical, arbitrary and

discriminatory. Therefore, even if it is a policy decision,

this Court can interfere.

9. Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior counsel

assisted by Mr. B. Satpathy who led the arguments on

behalf of the petitioners in all these cases. Also heard

Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the State.

10. Mr. Rath submits at the outset that if all the

Government resolutions beginning from the one issued

on 30.10.2000 for engagement of Sikhya Sahayaks till

the one issued on 06.08.2013 are perused, it would

reveal that the upper age limit was consistently fixed at

42 years. This is obviously in line with the fact that

Sikhya Sahayak is not a regular teaching post as per

the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory

Education Act, 2009 for which the Government in its

wisdom prescribed the minimum and maximum age

for general candidates for engagement as Sikhya

Sahayak as 18 and 42 years respectively. In the

resolution dated 06.08.2013, the upper age limit was

brought down to 35 years against which

representations were received from different quarters

by the State Government. The matter was considered

by a High Power Committee headed by the

Commissioner-cum-Secretary on 21.08.2013 and it

was decided to retain the upper age limit as 42 years.

Surprisingly, however, the Commissioner, by letter

dated 11.09.2014 (Annexure-6) without having any

authority, reduced the maximum age from 42 to 35

years. This was challenged before this Court in

W.P.(C). No. 18542 of 2014 and by order dated

30.01.2015; the State Government was directed to take

a decision. Accordingly, in the High-Power Committee

meeting held on 24.02.2015, the upper age limit was

fixed as 42 years. On such basis, the aforementioned

writ application was allowed. Therefore, there was no

justified reason to reduce the upper age limit from 42

to 32 years again in the advertisement dated

26.12.2016. Mr. Rath further argues that even

otherwise, the advertisement itself discloses that the

14,086 posts notified include the posts that were

unfilled in the previous year that is 2014. Since this

Court has granted the desired relief to candidates of

the said advertisement in the Writ Appeal Babita

Satpathy (Supra), the same principle ought to be

applied to the petitioners also. There are 4136 unfilled

vacancies against which the petitioners could be

accommodated.

Mr. Rath also argues that these aspects have

not been considered in the proper perspective by the

Commissioner-cum-Secretary while rejecting the case

of the petitioners by the impugned order. As regards

the rejection of the claim of one Banita Biswal by a

Single Judge of this Court, Mr. Rath submits that the

same must be held to have been decided per incuriam

as an earlier order passed by another Bench on

02.03.2015 had not been looked into. Mr. Rath

concludes his argument by referring to the recent

amendment brought by the State to the Odisha Civil

Service (Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules,1989

wherein the upper age limit of 32 years has been

changed to 42 years for entry into Government service.

11. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned AGA would argue that

the selection process initiated pursuant to the

advertisement dated 26.12.2016 has been completed

since long and there was no provision for maintaining

a waiting list. Secondly, the reliance placed by the

petitioners on Babita Satpathy (supra) is

unacceptable for the reason that said judgment was

passed in personam and not in rem and moreover, the

said case related to a different advertisement. Mr.

Pattnaik further submits that a Coordinate Bench was

not inclined to accept the contention raised by one of

the candidates, Banita Biswal and had dismissed the

writ application filed by her in WP (C) no.- 548 of 2017

challenging the very same advertisement involved in

the present cases. The order of the Single Judge is

therefore, binding on the petitioners. Mr. Pattnaik

further argues that relaxation of age is a policy

decision and the candidates have no right to question

the same. Allowing the claim of the petitioners would

violate the principles of equality as per Articles 14 and

16 and would also affect other candidates who could

not apply because of overage.

12. As already stated, the petitioners had

approached this Court earlier in W.P.(C). No. 40373 of

2021 which was disposed of by order dated 12.01.2022

with a direction to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of

the Department to consider the representation of the

petitioners dated 17.04.2021 and to pass a speaking

and reasoned order, taking into consideration the

materials placed before him by the petitioners. The

case of the petitioners was considered and rejected as

per order passed on 11.08.2023, which is impugned.

A careful reading of the impugned order reveals

that the claim of the petitioners was rejected on the

following four grounds:

(1) The case of Babita Satpathy (supra) is not

applicable to the case of the petitioners as the former

was in relation to advertisement dated 12.09.2014

while the latter relates to the advertisement dated

27.12.2016.

(2) The order passed by this Court in the case of

Hemanta Kumar Bhuyan v. State of Odisha (W.P.

(C). No. 18542 of 2014) clearly mentions that the same

shall not be treated as a precedent for future cases.

(3) An identical case filed by one Banita Biswal

(supra) (W.P. (C). No. 548 of 2017) challenging the very

same advertisement as in the present case was

dismissed on merits by this Court.

(4) Fixation of cut-off, prescribing maximum or

minimum age requirements for a post is the discretion

of the authority.

Since the last ground goes to the root of the matter,

the same is taken up for consideration first.

13. In this regard, it is argued by learned State

counsel that as per the settled position of law, matters

relating to creation and abolition of posts, prescription

of qualification, minimum and maximum age, etc. are

within the exclusive domain of the employer. The same

being a policy decision of the Government may not be

interfered with by the Courts. The judgment of the

Supreme Court passed in Union of India v. Pushpa

Rani, (2008) 9 SCC 242 has been cited in support of

such argument.

14. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of

the petitioners that while interference by the Court in

policy matters is ordinarily not permissible yet, where

such decision is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or

in contravention of the statutory provisions or violates

the right of individuals or is hit by Articles 14 and 16

of the Constitution, the writ Court can certainly

interfere. A judgment passed by learned single Judge

of this Court in the case of Girish Chandra Tripathy

Vrs. State Of Odisha (W.P.(C). No. 7103 of 2018) is

cited in support of such argument.

15. This Court has given its anxious consideration

to the arguments advanced as above as also the cases

cited at the bar. This Court is of the considered view

that policy decisions are ordinarily not amenable to

judicial review but then if the same is subversive of the

doctrine of equality or suffers from the vice of

arbitrariness or violates the principles of equality

guaranteed under the Constitution, judicial review

would be permissible. The above principle was laid

down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kailash

Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 6 SCC

562 and Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Admn.,

(2001) 3 SCC 635. Therefore, to contend that a policy

decision of the Government cannot be touched at all

would not be correct. The correct view would be that in

appropriate cases judicial review would be permissible.

The policy decision of the Government cannot be

insulated in a manner so tight as to not be amenable

to any kind of review. To the above extent, therefore,

the ground cited by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary

to reject the claim of the petitioners cannot be

countenanced in law.

16. The petitioners have heavily relied upon the

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in

Babita Satpathy (supra). Undisputedly, the

petitioners/ appellants of the said cases were

candidates pursuant to the notification dated

11.09.2014. The ground of challenge was however, the

fixation of upper age limit as 35 years instead of 42

years due to which the candidates had become

overaged. The learned Single Judge had rejected the

claim of the petitioners on the ground of non-joinder of

necessary parties. However, the Division Bench in its

judgment dated 23.12.2020 directed as follows;

"On perusal of the materials available on record and considering the submissions of learned counsels for both sides, we set aside the orders dated 29.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos.16711 of 2016, 22369 of 2015, 18904 of 2015 and 18768 of 2015. However, it is made clear that since there are unfulfilled vacancies of posts of Sikhya Sahayaks available against which the appellants could be accommodated, we, therefore, direct the respondents to accommodate these appellants against the said vacant posts as they are eligible for the said posts."

It is not disputed that the aforesaid judgment has

since attained finality in view of the dismissal of the

SLP filed by the State against it as also the review

application also filed by the State. It is stated at the

bar that the petitioners of the said cases have been

engaged against the unfilled vacancies of the previous

year.

17. According to the State authorities, the judgment

of Babita Satpathy (supra) can have no application

since the same was rendered in respect of the

notification dated 11.09.2014 whereas the present case

relates to the advertisement dated 26.12.2016. This

contention can be considered only to be rejected. It is

not so much a question whether the judgment of

Babita Satpathy (supra) was rendered in personam or

in rem as the principle decided therein. It is trite law

that where, despite variance in facts between two

cases, the issue and the principle involved and decided

is the same, it can be made applicable to the other

case as per the general law of the precedents. In

Director of Settlements v. M.R. Apparao, (2002) 4

SCC 638, the Supreme Court observed that:

xx xx xx xx xx The statements of the Court on matters other than law like facts may have no binding force as the facts of two cases may not be similar. But what is binding is the ratio of the decision and not any finding of facts. It is the principle found out upon a reading of a judgment as a whole, in the light of the questions before the Court that forms the ratio and not any particular word or sentence. To determine whether a decision has "declared law" it cannot be said to be a law when a point is disposed of on concession and what is binding is the principle underlying a decision. A judgment of the Court has to be read in the context of questions which arose for consideration in the case in which the judgment was delivered.

xx xx xx xx xx

[Emphasis Added]

Notwithstanding the fact that the notifications involved

in both the cases are different yet the issue involved in

both is one and the same, that is, justifiability of

reducing the upper age limit from 42 years. Though in

Babita Satpathy (Supra) it was reduced to 35 years,

in the present case it has been reduced further to 32

years.

A stand has been taken that the petitioners

cannot be granted the desired relief as in the absence

of a provision for maintaining a waiting list, the

unfilled vacancies of the recruitment year 2015-16 no

longer exists, having been taken forward to the

subsequent recruitment years. However, it is borne out

from the materials on record that the notification dated

26.12.2016 was in respect of 14,086 vacancies. The

Petitioners have emphatically argued that the same

include the unfilled vacancies of the year 2014 which

the state has not specifically denied. It is not disputed

that 4,136 posts out of the above posts advertised have

not been filled up. So, even if the petitioners are unable

to be considered against the vacancies of 2016 for

being overaged, there is no reason as to why they

cannot be considered against vacancies of 2014, in

respect of which a division Bench of this Court Babita

Satpathy (supra) held that the maximum age for such

vacancies shall be treated as 42 years. Obviously, a

different age cannot be taken for the very same

vacancies subsequently.

This Court, therefore, holds that the ground cited

by the Commissioner regarding inapplicability of the

judgment of the Babita Satpathy (supra) to the facts

of the present case is untenable.

18. The second ground cited in the impugned order

is that the order passed in Hemant Kumar Bhuyan

(supra) categorically mentions that the same shall not

be treated as precedent. Perusal of the order passed in

the said case reveals that it was actually held so. But

then the petitioners are not relying only on the said

decision but also on other cases and contentions,

which, if accepted, can grant them the desired relief.

19. The third ground cited is that an identical case

filed by a candidate challenging the very same

advertisement having been dismissed on merits by this

Court, said judgment operates as res judicata. What is

significant to note is that the judgment in Babita

Satpathy (supra) attained finality with dismissal of

the SLP filed by the State as also the Review

Application filed against it. Even then, it is significant

to note that a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)

No. 40373 of 2021 taking note of the grievance of the

petitioners vis-à-vis the judgment passed in Babita

Satpathy (supra) directed the Commissioner-cum-

Secretary to consider the representation of the

petitioners from which the impugned order has

emanated. It cannot be said that the coordinate Bench

was not conscious of the judgment passed in Banita

Biswal (supra) while passing such order. However,

said order was passed on the consent of the counsel

for School and Mass Education Department without

raising the fact of dismissal of the case of Banita

Biswal (Supra). The order of the coordinate Bench

was never challenged but was complied with by

disposing of the representation. There was no

challenge to said order even after the Writ Appeal filed

in Banita Biswal had been dismissed. Therefore,

notwithstanding the decision in Banita Biswal

(supra), the matter was given a fresh look in view of

the judgment passed in Babita Satpathy (supra) as

directed by the coordinate Bench and, therefore, it was

not open to the Commissioner to raise the ground of

dismissal of Banita Biswal's case.

20. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that

none of the grounds cited by the Commissioner-cum-

Secretary to reject the claim of the petitioners can be

treated as valid.

21. Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis of facts

law involved, contentions raised and the discussion

made, this Court is of the considered view that the

impugned order cannot be sustained in eye of law.

However, the resolution dated 26.12.2016 coupled with

the advertisement issued on the same date having

already been acted upon since long, this Court would

not interfere with it by granting the relief of quashment

of the same, but is inclined to direct the concerned

authorities to consider the case of the petitioners

against the unfilled vacancies of 2014, akin to the

manner in which the division Bench of this Court

directed in the case of Babita Satpathy (supra). The

impugned order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the

Commissioner-cum-secretary is however quashed.

The Opposite Parties are directed to issue

necessary orders for engagement of the petitioners as

Sikhya Sahayak or in any other euivalent posts by

treating their engagements as against the unfilled

vacancies of 2014. The whole exercise shall be

completed within three months from today.

22. All these writ applications are disposed of

accordingly.

.................................. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

Deepak