[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Raghunath Sethi vs State Of Odisha & Others on 16 April, 2026

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK



                WP(C) No.37338 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
                           of India.
                            ***

Raghunath Sethi ............. Petitioner

-VERSUS-


State of Odisha & Others
                                ........      Opposite Parties

Counsel appeared for the parties:



For the Petitioner         : Mr.H.K.Mohapatra, Adv.

For the Opposite Parties : Mr.S.Nayak, A.S.C.

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing: 16.04.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 16.04.2026 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner

praying for directing the Opposite Parties to consider the case

of the Petitioner to engage him as Sikhya Sahayak under the

backlog vacancies in view of the direction passed in W.A.

No.701 of 2019 between Babita Satpathy and others Vrs.

State of Odisha and others within a stipulated time and to

pass such order/orders and direction/directions as the Court

may deem fit and proper.

2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which

prompted the Petitioner for filing of the same is that, the

Petitioner is trained graduate and he has passed OTET

examination and as such, he (Petitioner) has possessed

required academic and training qualification to be engaged as

Sikhya Sahayak as per the guidelines of the Government in

consonance with provisions of Right of Children to Free and

Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

As such, he (Petitioner) has possessed the required

qualification as prescribed by the National Council for Teacher

Education (NCT) to get appointment as teacher for imparting

education to the students of Class-I to Class-VIII.

As per the resolution of the Government, the Government

of Odisha School and Mass Education Department made an

advertisement on dated 26.12.2016 inviting the applications

from the applicants to apply for Sikhya Sahayak against the

notified huge vacancies. As, the Petitioner had possessed

required qualification, he submitted his application for the

same.

But, his application was rejected on the ground of his

over age discriminating him (Petitioner) debarring him from

getting appointment as Sikhya Sahayak in spite of huge

numbers of backlog vacancies.

When, several numbers of over age OTET passed

graduates like the Petitioner were allowed to be considered to

get appointments as Sikhya Sahayaks against the vacancies in

view of the judgment dated 23.12.2020 passed in W.A. No.701

of 2019 between Babita Satpathy and others Vrs. State of

Odisha and others along with two other writ appeals with the

same, then, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing this

writ petition praying for directing the O.Ps to consider his case

at par with the applicants/Petitioners in the above disposed of

W.A. No.701 of 2019 along with two other writ appeals with

the same.

3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the

Petitioners and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for

the State.

4. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted the judgment dated 23.12.2020 passed in writ appeal vide W.A. No.701 of 2019 between Babita Satpathy and others Vrs. State of Odisha and others, judgment dated 19.12.2025 passed in batch of writ petitions in W.P.(C) No.32208 of 2023 between Dhaneswar Das and others Vrs. State of Odisha and others, the judgment dated 20.01.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No.4966 of 2025 between Ratnakar Nayak Vrs. State of Odisha and others, the judgment dated 19.02.2026 passed in batch of writ petitions in W.P.(C) No.8167 of 2025 between the Santosh Kumar Panigrahi and others Vrs. State of Odisha and others and the judgment dated 20.02.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No.33379 of 2022 between the Tanmaya Kumar Patra and others Vrs. State of Odisha and others contending for disposing of this writ petition passing similar judgment like the judgments passed in the above disposed of writ appeals and writ petitions,

as the Petitioner is similarly placed with the Petitioners in the above disposed of writ appeals and writ petitions.

5. It appears from the judgments of the above disposed of

writ appeals and writ petitions that, the Petitioner of this writ

petition is similarly placed with the Petitioners of the above

disposed of writ petitions. Because, the applications of the

Petitioners of the above disposed of writ petitions for Sikhya

Sahayaks were rejected by the O.Ps on the ground of their over

age like the Petitioner in this present writ petition and taking

their grievances into account, the judgments in the above writ

appeals and writ petitions were passed directing the Opposite

Parties for the engagement of the Petitioners thereof as Sikhya

Sahayaks or in any other equivalent posts against the unfilled

vacancies.

6. When, the Petitioner in this writ petition is similarly

placed with the Petitioners in the aforesaid disposed of writ

appeals and writ petitions, then, as per law, the judgment in

this writ petition is required to be passed alike with the

judgments of the aforesaid disposed of writ appeals and writ

petitions.

Because, it is the settled propositions of law that, like

cases are to be decided alike and similarly placed

applicants/Petitioners are entitled to get equal treatment from

the Court without any discrimination.

7. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been

clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

(i) In a case between Ardhendu Sekhar Rath and another Vrs. State of Odisha & Others reported in 2019 (2) OJR 491 that,

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 prescribes equality before law, law should be deal alike with all in one class; that there shall be equality of treatment under equal circumstances, which means "that equals should not be treated unlike and unlikes should not be treated alike, likes should be treated as alike".

(ii) In a case between Dkshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others Vrs. Bachan Singh reported in AIR 2009 (SC) 2745 that,

As per Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is that, all persons similarly placed shall be treated alike, both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation without any discrimination.

8. So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the

ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it is held that, the Petitioner in

this writ petition being equal to the Petitioners with the above

disposed of writ appeals and writ petitions, he (Petitioner) is

entitled to get equal treatment/judgment like them and the

Court cannot discriminate between similarly situated persons,

because, as per law, all persons similarly situated should be

treated similarly.

Therefore, there is no other alternative for this Court, but,

to dispose of this writ petition passing similar judgments,

those were passed in the aforesaid earlier writ appeals and writ

petitions, as the Petitioner in this writ petition is similarly