[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Anita Behera vs State Of Odisha Represented By on 22 April, 2026
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.739 of 2026
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India.
Anita Behera ... Petitioner
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha represented by
Commissioner-cum-Secretary
to the Government, School and Mass
Education Department,
Bhubaneswar and others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. M. K. Mohanty, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty,
Learned Standing Counsel
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 22.04.2026 / date of judgment : 22.04.2026
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 quashing the impugned Order No.1051 dated
26.03.2018(Annexure-9) passed by the Collector-cum-Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.3)
relating to the disengagement of the petitioner from Swechhasevi
Sikshya Sahayaka and to direct the Opposite Parties through issuance
of a writ of mandamus for providing all the service and financial
benefits accrued in favour of the petitioner and to pass such other
order or orders as the Court deems just fit and proper.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, an advertisement was made
by the Director, Elementary Education Orissa(Opposite Party No.2)
on dated 25.03.2003 (Annexure-1) in The daily "Sambad" inviting
applications for the post of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka in
Government Primary Schools in different Education Districts. In that
advertisement, there were 419 posts of Swechhasevi Sikshya
Sahayaka for Rairangpur Education District to be filled up. The
minimum qualification for the said posts was Matric Pass with C.T.
and Graduation with B.Ed indicating therein clearly that, untrained
Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste candidates are eligible to apply
for the said post of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka and the
provisions of ORV Act are applicable to them.
In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioner being an
untrained Matric candidate of Scheduled Caste category applied for
the same. Thereafter, the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.3) vide his Office
Letter No.713 dated 27.08.2003 wrote a letter to the Director,
Elementary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.2)
stating that, the selection process as per advertisement dated
25.03.2003 has not been over and after selection process is over, the
select list shall remain valid for one year, as per Resolution dated
03.10.2000 of the Government, for which, she may be
permitted/allowed to engage the waiting candidates of the select list.
On the basis of that letter dated 27.08.2003 of the Opposite Party
No.3, the Government took a decision and communicated the same
to all the Collectors of the State through Opposite Party No.1 as per
letter dated 29.06.2003 to give engagement to the waiting candidates
from the select list.
3. So, the petitioner was given appointment as Swechhasevi
Sikshya Sahayaka vide Order No.1348 dated 12.08.2004(Annexure-
4) against one of fifteen(15) Matric C.T./Matric Posts reserved for
Scheduled Caste(Women).
4. The said circular/letter dated 26.09.2003 of the Government of
Orissa was quashed by this Court as per order dated
29.04.2004(Annexture-5) passed in W.P.(C) No.11748 of 2003
between Hrushikesh Bindhani and others vrs. State of Orissa and
others and direction was given to make fresh advertisement for
filling up the vacancies of 15682 posts amongst the candidates, who
were eligible as on 26.09.2003.
5. In pursuant to the aforesaid direction made by this Court in
Annexure-5 dated 29.04.2004, the Opposite Party No.2 made a fresh
advertisement in the month of September, 2004 for filling up of
15682 posts of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka in the State of Orissa
including 587 posts for Rairangpur Education District.
6. As, the petitioner was appointed on dated 12.08.2004 after
26.09.2003, she(petitioner) was asked to apply for the same again as
an in-service candidate, but, the petitioner did not participate in that
selection process, as she was legally and validly appointed on dated
12.08.2004 as per Annexure-4 in pursuant to the advertisement dated
25.03.2003.
While, the petitioner was continuing in her service since
10.02.2004, i.e., for last fourteen(14) years, all of a sudden, the
Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.3) as per Office Order No.1051
dated 26.03.2018(Annexure-9) illegally and arbitrarily disengaged
the petitioner from her service on the ground that, she (petitioner)
was engaged after 26.09.2003 and she was not selected in the next
selection process in pursuant to the 2 nd advertisement, which was
made on the basis of the order dated 29.04.2004 passed in W.P.(C)
No.11748 of 2003.
To which, the petitioner challenged by filing this writ petition
praying for quashing her said disengagement Order No.1051 dated
26.03.2018 (Annexure-9) issued by the Opposite Party No.3 on the
ground that, she was validly selected and appointed by the Opposite
Parties, for which, she(petitioner) should not have been disengaged
arbitrarily compelling her to appear in the next examination for her
selection in the same post along with other grounds.
7. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
8. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment dated 17.10.2025
passed in RVWPET No.31 of 2025 by this Court in a like nature of
case of an another Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka candidate of the
same Rairangpur Education District like the petitioner between
her(Banita Behera vrs. State of Odisha and others).
9. It appears from the judgment dated 17.10.2025 between
Banita Behera vrs. State of Odisha and others in RVWPET No.31
of 2025 that, the petitioner in this writ petition is similarly placed
with the petitioner of the above disposed of RVWPET No.31 of
2025.
Because, the same Annexure-9, to which, the petitioner has
challenged in this writ petition, the same was also under
challenge in RVWPET No.31 of 2025 and like the petitioner, the
petitioner Banita Behera in RVWPET No.31 of 2025 was serving as
Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka on being appointed like the
petitioner and she(Banita Behera) was disengaged by the Opposite
Party No.3 in the same Annexure-9, but, that Annexure-9 relating to
her disengagement was quashed as per judgment dated 17.10.2025
passed in RVWPET No.31 of 2025.
10. When, the petitioner in this writ petition is similarly placed
with the petitioner in the aforesaid disposed of RVWPET No.31 of
2025, then, as per law, judgment in this writ petition is required to be
passed alike with the aforesaid judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed by
this Court in the RVWPET No.31 of 2025.
Because, it is the settled propositions of law that, like cases are
to be decided alike and similarly placed applicant/petitioner is
entitled to get equal treatment from the Court without any
discrimination.
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 and others : reported in 2019(II) 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 equity of treatment under equal
circumstances, which means "that equals should not be treated
unlike and unlike should not be treated alike, likes should be
treated as alike."
(ii) In a case between Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam
and others vrs. Bachan Singh : reported in 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.
(iii) In a case between Anupama Mallick vrs. State of
Odisha and others decided in W.P.(C) No.5813 of 2026 at
Para No.6 that, like the cases are to be decided alike and
similarly placed applicants/petitioners are entitled to get equal
treatments from the Court without any discrimination.
11. So, applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the
aforesaid decisions to this matter at hand, it is held that, the petitioner
in this writ petition being equal with the petitioner in the disposed of
RVWPET No.31 of 2025, she (petitioner) is entitled to get equal
treatment/judgment like the petitioner in RVWPET No.31 of 2025
and there cannot be any discrimination between them, because, as
per law all persons similarly situated/placed should be treated
similarly.
12. Therefore, there is no other alternative for this Court, but, it is
required under law to dispose of this writ petition passing similar
judgment in the line of the judgment dated 17.10.2025 of the
aforesaid RVWPET No.31 of 2025.
13. Therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.
The disengagement Order No.1051 dated
26.03.2018(Annexure-9) issued by the Collector-cum-Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party
No.3) to the petitioner is quashed being vitiated for breach of
audi alteram partem and non-application of mind to the
advertisement/cohortdistinction with the other similar
conditions indicated in para no.24 of the judgment dated
17.10.2025 passed in the earlier RVWPET No.31 of 2025 by
this Court.
14. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of
finally.
Interim order, if any, passed earlier in any of the petitions
stands vacated.
(A.C. BEHERA)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 22 of April, 2026/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 10:35:01
