[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Shiba Sundar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 15 January, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.37159 of 2023
Shiba Sundar Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Budhadev Routray,
Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. Subhadutta
Routray, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty,
ASC
Mr. Santosh Kumar
Pattanaik, Senior
Advocate for the O.P.
No.5
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
15.01.2026
Order No. W.P.(C) Nos.37159 of 2023, 23519 of 2022, 23669 of 2022, 40618 of
2023, 40620 of 2023, 40621 of 2023, 40622 of 2023, 40624 of 2023, 40626
of 2023, 40628 of 2023, 40629 of 2023, 40641 of 2023 & 40644 of 2023
18. 1. These matters are taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Counsel, along
with Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the
Petitioners; Mr. S.K. Pattanaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the private Opposite Parties; and Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, learned
counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties.
3. The present writ petitions have been filed at the instance of the
candidates, who were initially selected and appointed as TGT
Teachers, challenging their illegal termination on the basis of a
criteria which was changed after the selection process was over.
4. Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Petitioners, at the
outset, contended that the initial advertisement contained a clause
with regard to grant of preference to the candidates belonging to the
same district. Accordingly, the selection process continued and the
Petitioners were selected and they were given appointment as TGT
Teachers in their respective schools. Immediately after their joining,
the selection criteria was modified and the clause with regard to grant
of preference was withdrawn by the State Government with a further
direction to the respective district selection committee to redraw the
selection list on the basis of the merit. After the merit was redrawn on
the basis of the mark secured in the written examination, the services
of the Petitioners were terminated and in their place the private
Opposite Parties were given appointment. Such termination was
initially challenged by the Petitioners by filing a writ petition before
this Court. A coordinate Bench of this Court after considering the
submission made by the respective parties was pleased to set aside the
order of termination with a further direction to the Opposite Parties to
provide an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. Accordingly,
show cause notices were issued to the Petitioners by the State-
Opposite Parties. After submission of their reply to the show cause,
again the decision with regard to termination of the service of the
Petitioners was taken by the State-Opposite Parties by passing the
order which has been challenged in the present writ petitions.
5. Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Petitioners, at this
juncture, contended that the Petitioners were selected by following the
due procedure and strictly in terms of the guidelines prescribed in the
advertisement. After conclusion of the selection process, the
Petitioners were also given appointment and they have joined
pursuant to such appointment letters. Thereafter, they have been
removed from service. In this context, it was argued by the learned
Senior Counsels appearing for the Petitioner that the criteria of
selection could not have been changed either during the selection
process or after conclusion of the entire selection process. In the
aforesaid context, they also referred to several judgments of this Court
as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the private Opposite
Parties, on the other hand, contended that the State-Opposite Parties
have not committed any illegality in terminating the services of the
Petitioners and in their place appointing the private Opposite Parties.
While substantiating his argument, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the private Opposite Parties referred to Article 16 of the
Constitution of India and submitted that the criteria which was
incorporated during the original advertisement with regard to grant of
preferential right on the basis of their place of residence is absolutely
illegal and not in conformity with the constitutional principles.
Hence, it was contended that the State-Opposite parties have not
committed any illegality in redrawing the select list after withdrawing
the criteria with regard to preferential selection or the candidates
belonging to the same district.
7. Before hearing the learned counsel for the State on the issue,
this Court is of the view that since the Petitioners were selected and
appointed by following the due procedure of selection and they have
been removed from service, in the aforesaid factual backdrop, this
Court directs the State-Opposite Parties to examine as to whether the
Petitioners could be retained in service taking into consideration the
number of vacancies available in the post of TGT Teacher in
Kandhmal district, and the same shall be on the basis of the position
of the Petitioners in the combined merit list.
8. Accordingly, learned counsel for the State shall intimate the
same to this Court on the next date as to whether there are vacancies
in the post of TGT Teacher in the district of Kandhamal and whether
the Petitioners, who were selected and later on terminated, could be
adjusted against such vacancies. If required, an affidavit be filed in
that regard by the next date.
9. List this matter in the week commencing 9th February, 2026.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
