Orissa High Court
Binodini Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 16 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.1898 of 2025
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
----
Binodini Nayak .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Petitioner - Dr. Jitendra Kumar Lenka
B.Mohapatra & A.K. Sahoo
(Advocates)
For Opp. Parties - Mr.J.K. Ray,
ASC for O.Ps1 to 4
---
CORAM
MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 16.09.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
One Ramesh Chandra Parida was appointed as a Hindi
Teacher vide order dated 14.12.1991. However, for remaining
unauthorized absence, his services came to be terminated on
27.02.2004. To that vacancy, petitioner came to be appointed after
selection vide order dated 05.01.2005 (Annexure-1). Her
appointment was approved on 17.04.2012 with effect from
01.04.2008 vide Annexure-3. Mr. Parida challenged his
termination in W.P.(C) No.7512 of 2012, which was dismissed on
19.07.2018. His Writ Appeal No.434 of 2008 also met the same fate
on 08.03.2019. He carried the matter in C.A. No.4632 of 2024,
which ultimately came to be allowed by the Apex Court vide
order dated 02.04.2024 with a specific direction for reinstatement
in service. As a consequence, he has been reinstated too.
2. As a fallout of reinstatement, the petitioner, who had put in
more than twenty years of spotless service, was rendered jobless.
He had requested the jurisdictional opposite parties to
accommodate him in any of the vacancies in any aided schools.
The District Education Officer, Balaosre mercifully made a
recommendation to the Director, Secondary Education, vide letter
dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure-14) that the petitioner may be
accommodated in a post in one of the three schools enlisted in the
said letter. However, the Joint Director of Secondary Education,
Odisha vide order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure-15) negatived the
request of the petitioner in gross disregard of the
recommendation of the District Education Officer saying that the
Review Petition vide Diary No.23085 of 2024 filed by the School
Management was pending before the Apex Court. Aggrieved
thereby, the petitioner is airing his grievance in writ jurisdiction.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that
his client, having been appointed after due selection more than
twenty years ago, and her appointment, having been approved
by the jurisdictional authority on 17.04.2012 with retrospective
effect from 01.04.2008. It is only by the conspiracy of
circumstances that she has lost her job having put in such a long
& spotless service as a teacher and therefore, the action of the
answering opposite parties lacks reason and justice in denying a
post despite recommendation by the District Education Officer.
He also stresses the fact that the District Education Officer,
Balasore, in his recommendation, has also enlisted three Aided
Schools of same category wherein posts of the kind are left
unfilled. He also points out that the order of appointment was not
made subject to outcome of the litigation, which Mr.Parida would
undertake, if any, and therefore, it cannot be treated as a pure
case of appointment lis pendens.
4. Learned ASC appearing for the opposite parties 1 to 4
resists the petition making submission in justification of the
impugned order contending that: The eventual vacancy occurred
because of termination of services of Mr.Parida and to that
vacancy, petitioner was appointed. The termination of Mr.Parida,
having been set at naught by the Apex Court, he has been
reinstated in service, petitioner having rightly yielded place to
him. He also contends that when vacancy had arisen for some
reason, and it is filled up with another, obviously that would be
subjected to outcome of the litigation as to the legality of the
order, which created such vacancy and it is a case of lis pendens.
Therefore, nothing can be done in the matter. So contending, he
seeks dismissal of the petition.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence
in the matter as under and for the following reasons:-
5.1. The facts, as narrated above, are not in dispute. Petitioner,
having requisite qualification, was selected by the Management of
the opposite party-school and thereafter, was appointed with
effect from 05.01.2005 vide Annexure-1. Appointment also came to
be approved vide order dated 17.04.2012 with retrospective effect
from 01.04.2008 as is reflected in Annexure-4. Mr. Parida, having
lost his legal battles both in writ petition and writ appeal,
succeeded before the Apex Court and secured an order for his
reinstatement. However, all this happened after twenty years of
petitioner's appointment and that too for no fault of his. His case is
not of backdoor entry, but one of due selection followed by
appointment and approval as well.
5.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in telling that the
District Education Officer, after considering all aspects of the
matter, has rightly recommended vide letter dated 23.08.2024
(Annexrue-14) the case of his client for accommodating him in the
existing vacancies in any of the three schools, namely, K.C. Pur
Panchayat High School, Gabapal, Binapani High School, Darkholi
& Panchulingeswar High School. After all, as the policy now
stands the 5th opposite party-aided school is under the direct
administration & control of District Education Officer, Balasore,
the popular body not being there.
5.3. The reasoning of the Joint Director that Review Petition is
pending before the Apex Court would also not come in the way of
accommodating the petitioner in the vacancy in one of the three
schools, inasmuch as the said petition filed by the then
Management of the School has been dismissed on 19.01.2025.
Pendency of the Review Petition was the only ground on which
petitioner's case for appointment elsewhere was not favourably
considered. That ground, having withered away, now the opposite
parties cannot manufacture other grounds to deny appointment to
the petitioner in the light of Apex Court decision in Mohinder
Singh Gill V. Chief Election Commission, AIR 1978 SC 851.
5.4. Ours is a constitutionally ordained Welfare State. Therefore,
the action of the State and its instrumentalities should abound
elements of fairness, reason & justice. The authorities cannot
mindlessly pass orders that would strike at law, at reason & at
justice. Human difficulties that are generated for no fault of theirs
have to be borne in mind and all reasonable effects be made to
mitigate the same, of course, within the frame work of law.
Otherwise, the Government, in the sarcastic words of Jermy
Bentham, would be what 'but a band of robbers.' Statutory
authorities should shed Macaulay Mindset and Colonial Hangover
while addressing the woes of citizens.
In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed; a Writ of
Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 13.09.2024
(Anneure-15) made by the Joint Director, Secondary Education,
Odisha coupled with a Writ of Mandamus to appoint the
petitioner in terms of Block Grant Scheme within an outer limit of
ten (10) weeks in any of the schools enlisted by the District
Education Officer, Balasore or any other school of the same
category and approve the appointment within a period of three
months next following.
Director, Secondary Education, Odisha to report compliance
to the Registrar General of this Court at the earliest, failing which
petitioner may move an appropriate application for penalizing the
errant.
Now, no costs.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 16th day of September, 2025/Basu
Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 18-Sep-2025 16:44:41
