[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Smt. Jyotsnarani Nayak vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 5 February, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.36938 of 2025
Smt. Jyotsnarani Nayak ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Sangram Das
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
05.02.2026
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the
learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ
petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner has made
the following prayer:-
"It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be graciously pleased to:
i) Admit the writ application.
ii) Call for the records.
Ill) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other
writ/writs, by quashing the impugned transfer order
No. 2350 dt.23.09.2025 issued by the 0pp. Party No.5
under Annexure-6 in so far as it relate to the present
petitioner is concerned and to declare the same as
illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law decided by
this Hon'ble court in the case oi Ranjan Kumar
Tripathy Frs. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C)
No.20875 of 2025 and batch disposed of vide common
judgment dt27.1L2025).
iv) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions by directing the opposite parties,
more particularly opposite party No. I to 5 to allow the
petitioner to continue in her present place of posting
I.e. at Govt. Primary School, Mahulia under Daspalla
Block as before, and the petitioner may be extended
with all other consequential service benefits as due and
admissible within a reasonable time to be stipulated by
this Hon'ble Court.
v) And/or pass such other order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deems
fit and proper for the ends of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended
that the Petitioner was initially engaged as a Sikshya Sahayak on
28.02.2012. Thereafter, on successful completion of six years of
service, she was regularized in service as a Primary School
Teacher in Level-V in the Elementary cadre we.f. 01.03.2018. On
14.05.2025, the Government of Odisha in superannuation of all
previous notifications/circulars issued a guideline for governing the
transfer of Elementary teachers in the State by fixing the date line
for issue of transfer orders in case of rationalization. As per the
aforesaid guideline, the last date for issuing such transfer order was
fixed to 31st May, 2025. Thereafter, the same was modified and
the last date was fixed to 19th July, 2025. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that in the present case, the
Petitioner has been transferred by virtue of impugned order at
Annexure-6 dated 23.09.2025. Further, referring to the transfer
order at Annexure-6, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that such transfer has been done on rationalization/administrative
ground. Further, it is alleged that such order dated 23.09.2025 is
contrary to the Government guidelines. Hence, learned counsel for
the Petitioner prayed that the impugned transfer order is illegal
and, as such, the same should be quashed. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the
instruction of the Government vide letter dated 19.06.2025. He
also referred to the judgment of a coordinate Bench delivered in
the case of Ranjan Kumar Tripathy v. State of Odisha & Others
and batch of other similar matters, which was disposed of by a
common judgment dated 27.11.2025 in support of his contention.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted
that the Petitioner has been transferred as a part of the
rationalization policy and on administrative ground. Therefore, the
impugned order dated 23.09.2025 does not call for any interference
at this stage. Additionally, learned counsel for the State stated
before this Court that the present Petitioner is continuing at the
present place of posting for last ten years. It is also alleged that
some complaints have been received against the present Petitioner.
On such ground, learned counsel for State submitted that the
impugned transfer order does not call for any interference by this
Court at this stage. Hence, it was prayed that the writ petition be
dismissed at the threshold.
6. Having heard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful
examination of the background facts of the present case, as well as
the judgment in Ranjan Kumar Tripathy's (supra), and further
taking note of the instruction received by the learned counsel for
the State vide letter dated 02.02.2026, this Court found that the
Petitioner has been admittedly transferred beyond the transfer as
has been prescribed in the guideline, although in the transfer order,
it has been stated that such transfer is for rationalization and on
administrative ground. In any event, the Opposite Parties should
have followed such guidelines while implementing the transfer
policy of the Government, so far as it relates to the Teachers of the
Schools.
7. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court deems it proper
to dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner
to approach the Opposite Party No.2-Director, Elementary
Education, Odisha by filing a detailed representation taking therein
all the grounds along with supporting documents within fifteen
days from today. In such eventuality the Opposite Party No.2 shall
consider the case of the Petitioner by taking into consideration the
Government guidelines as well as the letter of the Government
dated 19.06.2025 and the judgment of this Court in Ranjan Kumar
Tripathy's case (supra) and dispose of such representation of the
Petitioner within four weeks by passing a speaking and reasoned
order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the
Petitioner within a week thereafter. It is further directed that till a
decision is taken on the representation of the Petitioner or for a
period of six week, the interim order passed earlier by this Court
shall continue.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis/Suchitra
