[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sutari Ganesh Reddy vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 11 February, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.1191 of 2026
Sutari Ganesh Reddy ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Jyotirmay Gupta
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. C.M.Singh, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 11.02.2026
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused
the writ application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"The petitioner therefore humble prays that the
Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this
case, issue notice to opposite parties for show cause
and after hearing both the sides may be pleased to issue
a writ of Mandamus/certiorari by directing the opposite
parties, particularly to O.P. No- 3, the District
Education Officer, Gajapati to issue necessary
instruction/order to the present Headmaster-in-charge
of the school to allow the petitioner to resume his
regular duty in his previous post with cost.
AND
Further be pleased to direct the District Education
officer, Gajapati i.e. O.P. No.-3 to take a final decision
as per his office Letter No.- 7521 dated 12.12.2025 vide
Annexure- 8 on the basis of the grievance petition of the
petitioner within a stipulated period.
AND
Further be pleased to pass such other order(s) direction
which this Hon'ble Court thinks fit and proper to this
case."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
initially the Petitioner joined in service w.e.f. 28.08.1993 by
submitting a joining report before the Opposite Party No.4 i.e. the
Manging Committee of Kshetri Sahu High School in Gajapti district.
He further contended that initially the school in question was not
receiving any grant-in-aid and that the Petitioner was appointed by
the Managing Committee of the School by following due selection
procedure. Thereafter, the school after receiving grant-in-aid and the
post of the Petitioner was approved w.e.f. 01.01.2004 by virtue of the
order dated 13.02.2019 of the D.E.O., Gajapati, Paralakhemundi,
Opposite party No.3. The order at Annexure-3 dated 13.02.2019
reveals that the pay scale of the petitioner was also fixed as has been
indicated therein. Thereafter, the petitioner was getting his scale of
pay.
5. While the matter stood thus, the Managing Committee of the
School in question terminated the service of the Petitioner due to
unauthorized absence of the petitioner from school and on the
allegation of misappropriation of school fund. Learned counsel for
the Petitioner at this juncture contended that although the service of
the Petitioner was terminated, however, the same has not went to the
Government for approval. On such ground, learned counsel for the
Petitioner contended that such termination order is bad in law as it
does not have concurrence of the State. In the present writ application
the Petitioner calls in question is his termination from service as well
as non-payment of salary to the Petitioner.
6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the basis of the
instruction received from the D.E.O., Gajapati-Opposite Party No.3
vide letter dated 18.12.2025, a copy of which was placed on record,
stated before this Court that the Opposite Party No.3 on examination
of the record found that no approval has been obtained in writing of
the D.E.O., Gajapati for termination of the service of the present
Petitioner. It has also been indicated in the instruction that due to the
negligence in the duty of the Petitioner, he could have been imposed
with minor penalty by the Managing Committee with due approval. It
has also been stated that the service condition of the present
Petitioner is governed by the Odisha Education (Recruitment and
Condition of Service of Teachers and Members of the staff of Aided
Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 with the amendment thereto. In
view of the provisions contained in 1974 Rules the termination of
service of the Petitioner requires previous approval of the
Government. However, no such approval has been obtained so far as
the present Petitioner is concerned. In such view of the matter,
learned counsel for the State contended that the Petitioner should
have approached Competent Authority for redressal of his grievance
instead of approaching this Court by filing the present writ
application. On such ground, it was also contended that the present
writ application, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful
examination of the background facts, further taking into
consideration the instruction of the D.E.O.(Opposite Party No.3) vide
letter dated 18.12.2025, this Court is of the view that in the event the
Petitioner has been terminated from service without specific approval
of the Government as is required under the Rules, 1974, it cannot be
said that termination in valid in law. In such view of the matter, this
Court while disposing of the present writ application remand the
matter to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the whole issue and
pass necessary order thereon. It is further directed that in the event
the opposite party No.3 comes to a conclusion that the termination is
void due to non-grant of sanction under 1974 Rules, then necessary
consequential relief, including their salary be considered and be
released in favour of the Petitioner if there are no other legal
impediments.
8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands
disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
