[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Banita Behera vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 24 February, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.4609 of 2026
Banita Behera ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Subhadutta Routray
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Director,elementary Education, Represented by Adv. -
Bhubaneswar
3) State Project Director, Orissa Primary Smt. S. Nayak, ASC
Education Programme Authority, Opepa,
Bhubaneswar
4) District Education Officer,
Nabarangpur
5) Block Education Officer, Raighar
Block
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
24.02.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the
documents annexed thereto.
3. By filing the present writ application, the Petitioner seeks the
following prayer.
"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court be graciously pleased to
i) Admit the writ application.
ii) Call for the record.
iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
writ/writs, direction/directions directing the opposite
parties to regularize the petitioner as Level-V Assistant
Teacher (ex-cadre) w.e.f. 16.02.2008 i.e. the date of the
Resolution No.3358/SME under Annexure and to grant
all consequential service and financial benefits by
modifying the Office Order dated 07.03.2024 under
Annexure: 7 in terms of the Judgment dated 08.12.2025
passed in WP (C ) No. 15973/2025 (Smt. Sandhyarani
Mishra Versus State of Odisha and others) under
Annexure;8 within a reasonable time to be stipulated by
this Hon'ble Court,
iv) And/or pass such other order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit
and proper for the ends of justice.
And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner as
in duty bound shall ever pray."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the Petitioner was initially appointed as Gana Sikshyak on
09.01.2009. On 22.12.2016 the modalities for regularization of
Gana Sikshyak notified. Since the Petitioner at the regularity
eligibility criteria and the case was not been considered for a
regularization, the Petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C) No.8702 of 2020. The coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 16.12.2020 to dispose of the writ application with a
direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation
of the Petitioner. Since the order dated 16.12.2020 was not been
implemented the Petitioner was compelled file CONTC No.5867 of
2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 07.10.2021.
5. While this Court is of the position, finally the Opposite
Parties regularize the service of the Petitioner with effect from
04.03.2024 by their order dated 07.03.2024 against a Level-V
Assistant Teacher (Ex-Cadre) post. The close grievance of the
Petitioner, the present writ application is that although the Petitioner
is eligible to be regularized with effect from 08.01.2017 however,
his services were regularized only with effect from 04.03.2024.
6. On perusal of the writ application as well as the documents
annexed thereto, this Court observed that the Petitioner has not
approach the Opposite Parties for redressal of his grievance with
regard to antedation of his date of regularization with effect from
08.01.2017. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in course of his
argument. Further submitted that the case of the Petitioner is
squarely covered by the ratio laid down by this Court in Smt.
Sandhyarani Mishra vs. State of Odisha and others decided in
W.P.(C) No.15973 of 2025, disposed of vide judgment dated
08.12.2025. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that the Petitioner is also entitled to the relief sought for
by him the present writ application the light of judgment dated
08.12.2025.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended
that he has no specific instruction in the matter. He further
contended that the Petitioner has not approached the Opposite Party
before approaching this Court by filing the present writ application.
In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended
that in the event, this Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to
approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation
with a corresponding direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to
consider the same in accordance with law within a stipulated period
of time, he will have no objection to the same.
8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels
appearing for respective Parties, on a careful examination of the
background facts. Further taking into consideration, the limited
nature of the grievance, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the
present writ petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to
the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a
detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with
supporting documents within three weeks from today. In such
eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the
case of the Petitioner in accordance with law keeping in view the
judgment in Sandhyarani Mishra's case (supra) within a period of
eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of todays'
order. The representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by
passing a speaking and reasoned order and the final decision so
taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
application stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Sisir
Designation: Personal Assistant
