Bhawani Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3199 Ori

Orissa High Court

Bhawani Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 7 April, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                       W.P.(C ) No.5698 of 2026

        Bhawani Pradhan                      ....                 Petitioner
                                                      Mr. S.K. Samal, Adv,


                                     -versus-

        State of Odisha & Others             ....          Opposite Parties
                                                          Mr. S.P. Das, ASC

                         COROM:
      HON'BLE THE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

                                     ORDER

Order No                           06.04.2026
     2.  1.    This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:

The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the opposite parties and, after hearing the parties, may quash the decision of the High Power Committee dated 23.07.2025, under Annexure-9, whereby the petitioner was not recommended for induction into Government service w.e.f. the date of commencement of the Odisha MPHW (Female) Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the opposite parties to induct/regularize the present petitioner as a Multi Purpose Health Worker (Female) District Cadre in the cadre from the commencement of the aforesaid Rules, 2019.

And/or to pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the facts of the case.

// 2 //

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall, as in duty bound, ever pray.

4. It is contended that in terms of the impugned decision taken by the High Power Committee on 23.07.2025 under Annexure-9, Petitioner since does not have the required qualification of passing Odia upto 7th Standard, she has been deprived to get the benefit of regularisation, in terms of the impugned decision of the High Power Committee.

4.1. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that admittedly, Petitioner by the time was appointed on contractual basis as MPHW (Female), even though there was a requirement of the aforesaid qualification of 7th Standard Odia Pass, but taking into account the requirement and urgency of the Department, she was provided with the appointment on contractual basis and was also allowed to continue, but on the ground that she does not have the required 7th Standard Odia Pass qualification, her name was not recommended by the High Power Committee to get the benefit of regularisation. It is contended that since on the face of the requirement and without having the same, Petitioner was provided with the appointment on contractual basis, after completing the required term and becoming eligible to get the benefit of regularisation, on the ground that Petitioner does not have the required qualification, her claim could not have been over- looked by the High Power Committee.

4.2. It is also fairly contended that Petitioner in the meantime has already acquired the required qualification so available under Annexure-7. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner has acquired the required qualification in the meantime, with publication of the result on 03.12.2020 by BSE, Odisha-Opp. party No.1 be directed to take a decision on the Petitioner's claim to get the benefit of regularisation, even

// 3 //

though, her claim was not considered by the High Power Committee in the impugned Proceeding dt.23.07.2025 under Annexure-7.

5. Pursuant to order dt. 24.02.2026, though instruction has been obtained, but basing on the materials available on record, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that since Petitioner admittedly does not have the required qualification of 7th Standard Odia Pass by the time she got the benefit of appointment, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned decision taken by the High Power Committee under Annexure-7. However, it is fairly contended that if Petitioner has already acquired the qualification in the meantime, she can raise her grievance before the appropriate authority for its consideration in accordance with law.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as a MPHW(Female) vide order of engagement issued by the CDM & PHO, Sambalpur on dt.28.11.2014 under Annexure-5 series. Pursuant to the said order, Petitioner joined as MPHW(Female) on 29.11.2014 so available under Annexure-5 series. However, on the ground that Petitioner does not have the required qualification of 7th Standard Odia Pass, which is a requirement in terms of the provisions contained under Odisha Multipurpose Health Worker (Female) Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019, her claim was considered to get the benefit of regularisation by the High Power Committee in the impugned proceeding dt.23.07.2025 under Anexure-9.

6.1. Rule-9(c) of the aforesaid Rules reads as follows:

// 4 //

(c)Knowledge in Odia: (1)The candidate must be able to read, write and speak Odia and must;

(ii) have passed Middle School Examination with Odia as a language subject; or

(iii) have passed Matriculation or equivalent examination with Odia as medium of examination in non-language subject, or

(iv), have passed in Odia as language subject in the final examination of Class VII from a School or Educational institution recognized by the Govt. of Odisha or Central Govt.; or

(v) have passed a test in Odia in Middle English School Standard conducted by the by the School and Mass Education Department

6.2. Since admittedly, Petitioner does not have the required qualification so prescribed under Rule-9(c) of the Rules which was also there by the time Petitioner got the benefit of appointment vide order under Annexure-5 series dt.18.11.2014, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the decision taken by the High Power Committee, under Annexure-7 in not recommending the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularisation.

6.3. However, considering the fact that Petitioner in the meantime has already acquired the qualification with publication of the result on 03.12.2020 under Annexure-7 and since it is not disputed that without not having the required qualification, she got the benefit of appointment vide order dt.28.11.2014 under Annexure-5 series and has already completed more than 12 years in the meantime, this Court is of the view that claim of the Petitioner requires a favourable consideration by Opp. party No.1, to get the benefit of regularisation.

// 5 //

6.4. Therefore, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition, permits the Petitioner to move an appropriate application before Opp. party No.2 for consideration of her claim to get the benefit of regularisation, taking into account the fact that she has acquired the qualification on 03.12.2020.

6.5. It is observed that if such an application will be filed within the a period of 2(two) weeks hence, Opp. Party No. 2 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of such application. The order so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 be communicated to the Petitioner.

It is further observed that while taking such a decision, relevancy and effect of the document available under Annexure-7 and the view expressed by this Court here-in- above be taken into consideration.

6.6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita

Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 10-Apr-2026 16:47:55