Pranabandhu Sarangi vs District Inspector Of Schools
2026 Latest Caselaw 264 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pranabandhu Sarangi vs District Inspector Of Schools on 13 January, 2026

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             RSA No.137 of 1987

        [In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of CPC from
        Judgment dated 17.12.1986 followed by decree dated
        23.12.1986 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Bargarh in
        Title Appeal No.1 of 1985, arising out of the judgment dated
        18.12.1984 followed by decree passed by learned Munsif,
        Bargarh in T.S. No.98 of 1980]


        Pranabandhu Sarangi                       ....   Appellant

                                    -Versus-

        District Inspector of Schools,
        Bargarh and others                        .... Respondents



        Advocate(s) appeared in this case:
        For the Appellants    :Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate

        For Respondents       :Mr. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel


        CORAM:
                 JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA


                                JUDGMENT

th 13 January, 2026

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

This is a plaintiff's appeal against a confirming

judgment passed by the then learned Sub-Judge, Bargarh

in Title Appeal No.1 of 1985 on 17.12.1986 followed by

decree dated 23.12.1986, whereby the judgment passed by

learned Munsif, Bargarh on 18.12.1984 followed by decree

in T.S. No. 98 of 1980 was confirmed.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as

per their respective status before the Trial Court.

3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking

declaration that he is a matriculate teacher according to the

terms and conditions of the appointment given to him. He

claimed that having passed the Part-I Higher Secondary

School Certificate Examination, he was appointed by the

District Inspector of Schools, Bargarh and was allowed to

draw pay scale attached thereto. However, by order dated

10.05.1973 passed by the Inspector of Schools, Baragarh

alleged excess payment made to him was recovered. Since

his repeated representations were not considered, he filed

the suit.

3.1 The defendants contested the suit by resisting

the claim of the plaintiff in their written statement

contending that the plaintiff was allowed to draw the scale

of pay of matriculate teacher by falsely representing that

passing of Part-I Higher Secondary Education is equivalent

to passing of matriculation or HSC Examination, which is

contrary to the relevant regulation of the Board of

Secondary Education.

3.2 On the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed

the following issues for determination:

"1. Is there any cause of action?

2. Whether the plaintiff is a Matriculate teacher as per regulations of the Board of secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack?

3. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?

4. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?"

4. After considering the contentions and the

evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court held under

issue Nos. 1 and 2 that the Board of Secondary Education,

Odisha not having recognized the equivalence between Part

-I of Higher Secondary Education course with that of

matriculation, the petitioner had no cause of action to bring

the suit and as such, was not entitled to the relief claimed.

The suit was thus, dismissed.

5. The plaintiff carried appeal to the learned Sub-

Judge, who was not inclined to take a view different than

that of the Trial Court and hence, dismissed the appeal by

confirming the judgment.

6. Being further aggrieved, the plaintiff has

preferred the present appeal, which was admitted on the

following substantial questions of law:

"Whether Part-I of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination is equivalent to Matriculation Examination conducted by the Utkal University?"

7. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the

appellant and Ms. Jyotsnamayee Sahoo, learned Addl.

Standing Counsel for the State.

8. Mr. Sahoo brings to the notice of the Court

certain developments that have occurred in the meantime.

He submits that the plaintiff was subsequently terminated

from service, against which he had preferred a writ petition

being OJC No.1047 of 1988. Said writ petition was

subsequently transferred to the erstwhile Odisha

Administrative Tribunal and was reregistered as T.A. No. 7

of 1992. By judgment dated 12.11.1992, the Tribunal

allowed the application by setting aside the order of

termination and by specifically holding that Part-I Higher

Secondary School Certification Examination is equivalent to

matriculation examination. Pursuant to such judgment, the

plaintiff was reinstated in service. Mr. Sahoo fairly submits

that in view of such developments, nothing further remains

to be decided in the second appeal as the question has

already been decided by erstwhile State Administrative

Tribunal. Ms. Sahoo, learned State Counsel also submits

that the substantial question of law framed has become

academic.

9. Having regard to the submissions as above, this

Court finds that nothing really survives for consideration in

the second appeal, which is therefore, disposed of as

infructuous.

...............................

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 13th January, 2026/ A.K. Rana, P.A.

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 18:24:54