[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Nirupama Jena on 5 February, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 1306 of 2025
In the matter of an appeal under Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order,
1948 read with Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court
from the order dated 04.03.2025 passed in WP(C) No.9688 of 2016 by
the learned Single Judge of this Court.
State of Odisha and Others .... Appellants
-Versus-
Nirupama Jena .... Respondent
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellants : Mr. Satya Brata Mohanty, AGA
For Respondent : M/s. Kunal Kumar Swain, K. Swain,
J. R.Khuntia, Advocates
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing & Judgment : 05.02.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER KRISHNA S DIXIT, J.
This Intra-Court Appeal of the State and its officials seeks to call
in question the learned Single Judge's order dated 04.03.2025, whereby
Respondent-employee's W.P.(C) No.9688 of 2016 having been favoured,
the following relief has been accorded to her:
"In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order under
Annexure-7 is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to allow
the petitioner to continue as Sikshya Sahayak with all consequential
service and financial benefits."
2. Learned AGA appearing for the Appellants-State vehemently
argues that initially the recruitment advertisement was issued on
11.09.2014; subsequently, a corrigendum came to be issued on
09.02.2016 fixing 28.02.2016 to be the last date for filing the
applications. The object of issuing the corrigendum was to benefit the
eligible and qualified candidates under the original advertisement who
could not stake their claim for appointment because of age bar. The
Respondent-employee admittedly having not acquired the prescribed
B.A., B.Ed. qualification within the last date prescribed under the original
advertisement, she has been disengaged vide order dated 03.05.2016. He
also tells that by that time although the Respondent-employee had already
gained entry to the employment, say a month or so, the fact was
ascertained on minute cross-checking of the documents submitted by her.
This aspect having not duly been adverted to by the learned Single Judge,
impugned order suffers from an infirmity warranting interference of this
Court.
3. Learned Advocate representing the Respondent-employee, per
contra, opposes the Appeal contending that once the date for filing
application is extended, the candidates who obtained the prescribed
educational qualification, even subsequent to the date mentioned in the
original advertisement itself, would become eligible to apply and
therefore, the impugned order is inexplicable. She presses into service a
decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. No.102 of 2016
between Biswaranjan Biswal vs. State of Odisha decided on 29.11.2022,
in support of his submission. He also presses into service a Single Bench
decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harman Preet Singh
Wadhwa vs. State of Punjab, MANU/PH/0322/2016.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused
the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter, inasmuch as the
question raised is no longer res integra. The same has been stoutly
answered by the Co-ordinate Bench in Biswajranjan supra, which
related to the very same recruitment process and the very same
corrigendum. At Paragraph-16, the Bench has observed as under:
"16. Even the plea that the corrigendum relates back to the original
advertisement overlooks the fact that as far as the present Appellants
are concerned, they became qualified to apply only because of the
relaxation of the upper age limit pursuant to the orders of this Court as
explained hereinbefore. In other words, it is only by virtue of
corrigendum that the Appellants came to apply for the post. If the
corrigendum were to relate back to the original date, they would not
even be qualified to apply. Therefore, as far as the three Appellants are
concerned, it cannot be said that the relevant date for determining
whether the Appellants possess the requisite qualification has to be the
original date of 30th September 2014. It has to be the revised date in
terms of the corrigendum."
At Para-12 of the decision, the corrigendum is specifically referred to.
5. Learned counsel representing the Respondent-employee is right in
pressing into service the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in
Harman Preet Singh Wadhwa supra, wherein Paragraph-22 reads as
under:
"22. ××× It is evident that by the corrigendum the applications for 700
posts and 600 posts of Mathematics Master/Mistress were invited and
the date was extended to 31.8.2006. Once the last date for submission
of applications has been extended to 31.8.2006 then it follows that the
eligibility as per Clause 10 would automatically be considered as on
31.8.2006. The detailed marks card of the petitioner in respect of her
B.Ed. examination is dated 20.8.2006 (Annexure-P-1) and accordingly
she has to be considered as eligible."
6. There is also force in the submission of the learned counsel for
Respondent-employee that once after verification of all the documents,
the appointment order has been issued and the appointee enters the portal
of the employment, it is not open to the other side to say that the
appointment order has been wrongly issued and more so, when
verification of the documents was already undertaken. No explanation is
offered by the Appellants as to the circumstances which resulted into
relooking of the documents produced by the Respondent-employee. It is
not their case that any fraud or fabrication has been perpetrated by the
Respondent-employee, either. The Respondent-employee having been
employed with effect from 31.03.2016 and continued in service by virtue
of interim order obtained in the subject Writ Petition, it would be highly
unjust to ask her to quit the employment now and therefore, the Writ
Court cannot do anything that would be unjust.
In the above circumstances, this Appeal being devoid of merit is
liable to be rejected and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy. It
is open to the Respondent-employee to seek regularisation in accordance
with law.
Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 5th day of February, 2026/AKPradhan
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 09-Feb-2026 10:32:52
