[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Saraswati Hansdah vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ....... Opposite ... on 11 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No. 14 of 2026
Saraswati Hansdah ........ Petitioner(s)
Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ....... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Taj Kumar, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
11.02.2026
Order No.
01.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. In this RVWPET, the Petitioner seeks review of the judgment
dated 22.12.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.6288 of 2018 dismissing
her prayer, wherein the Petitioner had challenged the order dated
26.03.2018 of the Collector-cum- Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Mayurbhanj disengaging her from the post of
Swechhasevi Shikshya Sahayak on the ground that she was
engaged after 26.09.2003.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Court has
earlier decided the similar issue in the judgment dated 17.10.2025
passed in RVWPET No.31 of 2025 (Banita Behera vrs. State of
Odisha and Ors.). Hence, he submits that this RVWPET may be
disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of
Banita Behera (supra).
4. Learned counsel for the State submit that he has no objection, if
this matter is disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in
the case of Banita Behera (supra).
5. On perusal of the records and the judgment passed in the case of
Banita Behera (supra), it appears that similar issue has already
been decided by this Court in the said judgment which was
disposed of on 17.10.2025. The ordering portion of the said
judgment is as follows:
24. This Court is, thus, satisfied that the common judgment dated
22.12.2023, qua the present Petitioner, suffers from an error apparent on
the face of the record in that it (i) proceeded on an unstated but crucial
assumption about the cohort/post to which the Petitioner belonged,
without adjudicating the rival case borne out by materials; and (ii)
consequently applied the no-prejudice/ritual hearing doctrine to a case
where prejudice is self-evident because a determination on facts could
well alter the outcome. In the result, the Review Petition is allowed on the
following terms:
i. The common judgment dated 22.12.2023 is recalled and set aside qua the
present Petitioner alone. Paragraphs and observations therein
inconsistent with this judgment shall not operate against her.
ii. Given the completeness of the pleadings and the circumscribed
controversy, this Court proceeds to dispose of the Writ Petition on merits
forthwith, rather than remand, to avoid further delay.
iii. The disengagement order No.1051 dated 26.03.2018 is quashed, being
vitiated for breach of audi alteram partem and for non-application of
mind to the advertisement/cohortdistinction.
iv. The matter is remitted to the Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla Parishad,
Mayurbhanj for a de novo decision, within eight weeks, on the following
specific issues:
(a) Whether the Petitioner's engagement vide Order No. 209 dated
10.02.2004 was against one of the 16 SC-Women posts notified under the
25.03.2003 advertisement;
(b) Whether those 16 posts were merged into the 15,682 post-26.09.2003
cohort or stood substantively filled in the first cycle owing to the non-
availability of trained SC-Women;
(c) The effect, if any, of the second advertisement (Rairangpur 587 posts; 21
SC-Women) and the in-service reservation note on the Petitioner's
provisional placement at Serial No. 19, including production and
consideration of the final select lists, appointment orders, and the policy
basis for in-service earmarking;
(d) Consequential application or inapplicability of W.P.(C) No. 11748 of
2003 to the Petitioner's engagement.
v. The authority shall afford the Petitioner a personal hearing, permit filing
of additional documents (including RTI responses, lists, orders), pass a
speaking order, and communicate the decision forthwith. Pending the
fresh decision, the Petitioner shall be reinstated to engagement within
four (4) weeks from receipt of this judgment and continued subject to
outcome.
25. Accordingly, the RVWPET and W.P.(C) No.6283 of 2018 are disposed
of."
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and taking into account the judgment dated 17.10.2025
passed in RVWPET No.31 of 2025, this Court is inclined to accede
to the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Accordingly, this Court is, thus, satisfied that the common
judgment dated 22.12.2023, qua the present Petitioner, suffers
from an error apparent on the face of the record in that it (i)
proceeded on an unstated but crucial assumption about the
cohort/post to which the Petitioner belonged, without
adjudicating the rival case borne out by materials; and (ii)
consequently applied the no-prejudice/ritual hearing doctrine to a
case where prejudice is self-evident because a determination on
facts could well alter the outcome. In the result, the Review
Petition is allowed on the following terms:
i. The common judgment dated 22.12.2023 is recalled and set
aside qua the present Petitioner alone. Paragraphs and
observations therein inconsistent with this judgment shall
not operate against her.
ii. Given the completeness of the pleadings and the
circumscribed controversy, this Court proceeds to dispose
of the Writ Petition on merits forthwith, rather than
remand, to avoid further delay.
iii. The disengagement order No.1051 dated 26.03.2018 is
quashed, being vitiated for breach of audi alteram partem
and for non-application of mind to the
advertisement/cohortdistinction.
iv. The matter is remitted to the Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla
Parishad, Mayurbhanj for a de novo decision, within eight
weeks, on the following specific issues:
(a) Whether the Petitioner's engagement vide Order No.
209 dated 10.02.2004 was against one of the 16 SC-
Women posts notified under the 25.03.2003
advertisement;
(b) Whether those 16 posts were merged into the 15,682
post-26.09.2003 cohort or stood substantively filled in
the first cycle owing to the non-availability of trained
SC-Women;
(c) The effect, if any, of the second advertisement
(Rairangpur 587 posts; 21 SC-Women) and the in-
service reservation note on the Petitioner's provisional
placement at Serial No. 11, including production and
consideration of the final select lists, appointment
orders, and the policy basis for in-service earmarking;
(d)Consequential application or inapplicability of W.P.(C)
No. 11748 of 2003 to the Petitioner's engagement.
v. The authority shall afford the Petitioner a personal hearing,
permit filing of additional documents (including RTI
responses, lists, orders), pass a speaking order, and
communicate the decision forthwith. Pending the fresh
decision, the Petitioner shall be reinstated to engagement
within four (4) weeks from receipt of this judgment and
continued subject to outcome.
7. Accordingly, the RVWPET and W.P.(C) No.6288 of 2018 are
disposed of.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: P.A.
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 11-Feb-2026 18:15:35
