[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Jagannath Handaka 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.4762 of 2026
Jagannath Handaka ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Sameer Kumar Das
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
D.K. Sahu, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
11.02.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the Additional Government Advocate. Perused the writ
application as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. By filing the present writ application the Petitioner has filed
with the following relief:
"Under the above circumstances, it is therefore
humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court be graciously
pleased to direct the 0pp. Party No.2 to take up the
issue of transfer of the working spouse category
within a specified period and to transfer the petitioner
in terms of the recommendation of the concern DEO
as he fulfills the conditions of the guideline;
And/or pass any other appropriate Writ/Writs,
order/orders or direction/directions be issued so as to
give complete relief to the petitioner.
And for this act of kindness as in duty bound the
Petitioner shall ever pray."
4. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner at the
outset contended that the Petitioner was initially selected and
appointed as a teacher and pursuant to such selection the Petitioner
joined his duty. He further submitted that the spouse of the present
Petitioner is also government employee working as a teacher under
the Government of Odisha. He further submitted that the
Government of Odisha, GA Department issued Office
Memorandum dated 06.08.1986 thereby taking a policy decision
with regard to the posting of the working spouse at the same
station, since both are in government service. Accordingly, the
School and Mass Education Department. Government of Odisha
issued a detailed guideline on 14.05.2025 with regard to transfer of
teachers in the State of Odisha. As per the guideline dated
14.05.2025 at Annexure-4, the Petitioner is eligible to apply for
transfer on the ground of working spouse and accordingly he
submitted a application.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended
that though the Petitioner is eligible for such transfer on the ground
of a working spouse and his case was recommended by the
concerned DEO, however, no decision has been taken by the
Transfer Committee of the concerned district. He further submitted
that the Transfer Committee has considered the cases of the
similarly situated persons who had applied for transfer on the
ground of a working spouse. It has been alleged that in the
aforesaid process the Petitioner has been discriminated against.
6. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Party in
discriminating the Petitioner, the Petitioner had no other alternative
but to approach this Court by filing the present writ application. In
course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that the Director, in his Office Order dated 08.10.2025,
has considered the case of 69 numbers of teachers for transfer on
the ground of working spouse and defence personnel. A copy of
such order has also been attached to the writ application at
Annexure-6.
7. Finally, the Petitioner, on inquiry, received a communication
dated 19.01.2026 at Annexure-8 to the writ application wherein it
has been stated that a case of the Petitioner shall be considered after
completion of the annual HSC Examination 2026. While assailing
such decision of the Opposite Parties, learned counsel for the
Petitioner contended that the guideline dated 14.05.2025 is valid for
this academic year. Therefore, in the event the case of the
Petitioner is not considered, there is every possibility that the
guideline may be changed in the next academic year. In such view
of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for a direction
to the Opposite Party to consider the case of the Petitioner strictly
in terms of the guideline dated 14.05.2025 at Annexure-4, by taking
into consideration the recommendation of the competent authority
at Annexure-5, within the current academic year.
8. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand
contended that although he does not have any specific instruction in
the matter, however, taking into consideration the grievance of the
Petitioner involved in the present writ application, learned
Additional Government Advocate submitted that in the event this
Court directs the Opposite Party No.2, the competent authority, to
take a decision in the matter in accordance with law and the
applicable guidelines within a stipulated period of time, he shall
have no objection to the same.
9. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the respective Parties, on a careful examination of the
background facts as well as documents annexed to the writ
application, further keeping in view the guideline dated 14.05.2025
and the fact that such guideline has been given effect to in respect
to other similarly situated employees, this Court deems to fit proper
to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing
the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner after
completion of the annual HSC Examination in the year 2026 before
end of the current academic session and any decision taken in
favour of the Petitioner shall be given effect to from the next
academic year without disturbing the Petitioner's posting for
current academic session.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 13-Feb-2026 11:49:29
