[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Lizarani Samantaray vs Collector on 22 January, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18646 of 2017
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)

Lizarani Samantaray .... Petitioner
-versus-
Collector, Ganjam and Others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. Rabindra Kumar Patnaik,
Advocate.

For Opposite Parties - Mr. G. Mohanty,
Standing Counsel.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

Date of Hearing :16.01.2026 :: Date of Judgment :22.01.2026

A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for

directing the Collector, Ganjam (O.P. No.1) to conduct an enquiry into

the grievances of the petitioner as per Annexure-5 and to pass an

appropriate order after giving personal hearing to the petitioner and others

regarding the selection of "Jogana Sahayak" of Genja G.P.

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned SC for the State.

3. As per the case of the petitioner, according to the Advertisement

made by the O.P. No.3 (Block Development Officer, Surada Block in the
Page 1 of 7
district of Ganjam), the petitioner along with others of Genja G.P. applied

for "Jogana Sahayak" of Genja G.P. As per the Advt. (Annexure-1), the

last date of submission of Application Form before the B.D.O., Surada

Block (O.P. No.3) was 05.02.2016 and accordingly, the petitioner

submitted her Application Form before the Office of O.P. No.3 (B.D.O.,

Surada Block) on 05.02.2016. An acknowledgment receipt vide

Annexure-2 was issued in favour of the petitioner by the O.P. No.3 on

dated 05.02.2016 regarding the submission of Application Form by the

petitioner.

Thereafter, the O.P. No.3 (B.D.O., Surada Block) sat over the

matter for eight months, but suddenly sent a panel list of the selected

Jogana Sahayak of different G.Ps including Genja G.P. of Surada Block

to the O.P. No.2 (Sub-Collector, Bhanjanagar) on dated 07.10.2016. The

O.P. No.2 approved the said selected panel list of Jogana Sahayak of all

G.Ps of Surada Block including Genja G.P. on dated 22.10.2016 without

displaying the said panel list in the notice board.

When, the petitioner came to know that, the O.P. No.4 has been

selected illegally as Jogana Sahayak of Genja G.P., then she (petitioner)

applied on dated 05.11.2016 under the R.T.I. Act for supplying

information in respect of the selection list of Jogana Sahayak of Genja

G.P., then the O.P. No.3 did not supply the said information in time. For

which, she (petitioner) preferred an appeal vide F.A. No.2 of 2017. Then,

Page 2 of 7
the Authority supplied information to her. After verification of panel list,

it was found that, in total 5 candidates for post of Jogana Sahayak of

Genja G.P. had applied and in Remarks Category, it was stated that, the

petitioner had submitted an application for Jogana Sahayak, which was

received on dated 06.02.2016 after completion of the cutoff date for

receiving the same.

As the petitioner had submitted her application in due time i.e. on

05.02.2016

and she had secured highest marks among the other

candidates, those had applied for the same, but only in order to

accommodate the O.P. No.4, the O.P. No.3 had manipulated the date of

receipt of her application as 06.02.2016 instead of 05.02.2016.

Therefore, she (petitioner) submitted a detailed representation

before the O.P. No.1 ventilating her aforesaid grievances and the O.P.

No.1 directed O.P. No.3 to conduct an enquiry about the same.

Thereafter, on dated 13.04.2017, the O.P. No.3 submitted a report to the

O.P. No.1 stating that, the cutoff date of submission of the application

was 05.02.2016, but she (petitioner) had submitted her application on

06.02.2016. For which, her application was not taken for consideration

into the selection process. The aforesaid enquiry report of the O.P. No.3

is neither legal nor correct. Because, she (petitioner) had submitted her

Application Form in due time on 05.02.2016, for which, she should have

been selected as "Jogana Sahayak" of Genja G.P., but illegally, she has

not been taken into the zone of selection process.

Therefore, she (petitioner) filed this writ petition against the O.Ps

praying for directing the O.P. No.1 (Collector, Ganjam) to conduct an

enquiry into her grievances as per Annexure-5 and to pass an appropriate

order after giving personal hearing to the petitioner and others in respect

of the selection of Jogana Sahayak of Genja G.P., as O.P. No.3 illegally

selected O.P. No.4 as Jogana Sahayak of Genja G.P.

4. The O.P. No.3 has submitted its counter denying the allegations

alleged by the petitioner in her petition stating that, the petitioner had

submitted her application on 06.02.2016, as evident from the office

Receiving Officer of the Office of the O.P. No.3 and if required, the

original of Annexure-B/3 can be submitted before this Court. As such, the

application of the petitioner was not submitted before the cutoff date.

Therefore, application of the petitioner was not taken into the zone of

selection process. The O.P. No.4 was lawfully selected. For which, the

selection of O.P. No.4 as Jogana Sahayak of Genja G.P. is neither

improper nor illegal and the said selected panel list of Jogana Sahayak of

Genja G.P. of all the G.Ps of Surada Blocks including Genja G.P. was

approved by the Sub-Collector, Bhanjnagar (O.P. No.2) as per Annexure-

C/3.

Therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is not

entertainable under law. The same is liable to be dismissed.

5. It is very fundamental in law that, any Application Form cannot be

accepted after the expiry of the cutoff date according to the

Advertisement.

Here in this writ petition, the petitioner is relying upon the copy of

an Acknowledgment Receipt vide Annexure-2 showing about the

submission of her application on dated 05.02.2016, to which, the O.P.

No.3 is contradicting/denying in its counter supported with an affidavit

relying upon Annexure-B/3 that, the application of the petitioner for

Jogana Sahayak was submitted on dated 06.02.2016 i.e. after cutoff date.

Because, the cutoff date for applying was up to 05.02.2016.

6. As per the rival submissions, contentions as well as the aforesaid

counter documents vide Annexure-2 and Annexure-B/3 against each

other, the date of submission of the application for "Jogana Sahayak" is a

disputed question of fact.

7. As per law, a disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated in a

writ petition. Because, for ascertaining the real truth about the disputed

the question of facts like this matter at hand, adduction of evidence is

required.

For which, the writ petition filed by the petitioner basing upon the

disputed question of fact for the reasons assigned above is not

entertainable under law.

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in

the ratio of the following decisions:-

(i) In a case between Sri Nilakantha Rath Vrs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors. reported in 108 (2009) CLT 638 that, disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. (Para 12)

(ii) In a case between Jay Maa Construction through Proprietor Radhe Lal Sahu Vrs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. passed in W.P.(C) No.3016 of 2025 (decided on 19.06.2025) (at Para 15) that, When there are disputed question of facts involved in a case, the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. When, the date of submission of the application i.e. whether before

or after the cutoff date is under dispute in this writ petition on the basis of

the counter documents against each other as per the discussions made

above and when as per the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of

the aforesaid decisions, the disputed question of facts cannot be

adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction, then at this juncture, by applying the

principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions to this

matter at hand, it is held that, this writ petition filed by the petitioner on

the disputed question of fact is not entertainable under law.

9. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be

dismissed.

10. In result, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed on

contest, but without cost.

11. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of

finally.

(A.C. Behera), Judge.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

22.01.2026//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Jan-2026 17:10:26