Damayanti Patra vs State Of Odisha
2026 Latest Caselaw 99 Ori

Orissa High Court

Damayanti Patra vs State Of Odisha on 7 January, 2026

              ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

                      W.A. No.732 of 2025

          In the matter of an Appeal under Article 4 of
                the Orissa High Court Order, 1948
                            read with
           Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting
              the High Court of Judicature at Patna
                               and
        Rule 6 of Chapter-III and Rule 2 of Chapter-VIII
         of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948

                             ***

Damayanti Patra Aged about 42 years Daughter of Mahendranath Patra At: Heseldihi, P.O.: Lupung, P.S.: Tiring District: Mayurbhanj. ... Appellant (Petitioner in the Writ Petition).

-VERSUS-

1. State of Odisha Represented though Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government School & Mass Education Department Secretariat Building Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.

2. Collector-cum-C.E.O. Zilla Parisad, Mayurbhanj At/P.O./P.S.: Baripada District: Mayurbhanj.

3. District Project Co-ordinator Sarva Shiksha Abhijan, Mayurbhanj At/PO/P.S.: Baripada District: Mayurbhanj.

4. District Education Officer, Mayurbhanj At/P.O./P.S.: Baripada District: Mayurbhanj.

5. Block Education Officer, Tiring At/P.O.: Tiring District: Mayurbhanj.

6. State Project Director Odisha Primary Education Programme Authority Shiksha Soudha, Unit-V Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.

7. Headmaster Raibadi Primary School At/P.O.: Raibadi, P.S.: Tiringi District: Mayurbhanj. ... Respondents (Opposite Parties in the Writ Petition).

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Appellant : M/s. Abhishek Naik and Akash Acharya, Advocates

For the Respondents : Mr. Kailash Chandra Kar, Government Advocate

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. HARISH TANDON

AND

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Date of Hearing : 07.01.2026 :: Date of Order : 07.01.2026

O RDER

This intra-Court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna is directed against the judgment dated 22nd December, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7525 of 2018 (which is one of the cases tagged to WP(C) No.5398 of 2018 and batch).

2. Facts adumbrated by the appellant in the writ appeal reveals that the appellant, having passed High School Certificate examination, was engaged as Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak in pursuance of engagement order dated 10th February, 2004 and entered into agreement with the Collector-cum-Chairman, DPEP/SSA and CEO, Zilla Parisad, Mayurbhanj.

2.1. Grievance of the appellant in the writ petition was that despite completion of three years of engagement, she was not appointed as Junior Teacher. Her further grievance was that she was not regularized in service even after completion of six years.

2.2. By Office Order dated 26th March, 2018 issued by the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj, 166 numbers of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaks including the appellant working in different schools have been disengaged from service. The relevant portion of the said Office Order reads as under:-

"In view of the direction of Government of Odisha School and Mass Education Department vide their letter No.18563/SME, dated 26.09.2017 and decision of Honourable High Court Odisha in W.P.(C) No.11748 of 2003 and WPC No.1751 of 2012 the following Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaks engaged after 26.09.2003 as per the instruction of Government of Odisha School and Mass Education Department vide letter No.894/SME, dated 26.09.2003 and not selected subsequently in pursuance to the advertisements issued subsequently are hereby disengaged with effect from the date of issue of this order."

2.3. Challenging said Office Order, the writ petition was filed with the following prayer(s):-

"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule "Nisi" to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to;

(i) Why the disengagement of the petitioner as Sikshya Sahayak vide the impugned order dated 26.03.2018 under Annexure-7 so far as it relates to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case be declared as illegal and as such liable to be set aside; and

(ii) Why the opposite parties will not be directed to re-

engage the petitioner as Sikshya Sahayak and allow him

to continue in her place of posting i.e. Raibadi Primary School as before forthwith; and And if the Opp. Parties do not show cause then the Rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ/writs and any other order as deem fit be passed;

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray."

2.4. Specific stand of the opposite parties is reflected in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the District Project Coordinator, Samagra Shiksha, Mayurbhanj- opposite party No.3 in the writ petition, which reads as under:-

"6. That, it is humbly submitted that an advertisement was published on 25.03.2003 by the Director Elementary Education, Odisha inviting applications from the intending candidates to fill up 167 posts under Baripada Education District, 136 posts under Betnoti Education district, 32 posts under Udala Education district, 123 posts under Karanjia Education district and 419 posts of SSS under Rairangapur Education district in total 877 posts of Swechhasevi Shiksha Sahayak in Mayurbhanj District. The petitioner had submitted her candidature in response to the said advertisement for engagement as Swechhasevi Shiksha Sahayak under Rairangapur Education district against the above notified vacancy. The petitioner was an untrained SC candidate. On receipt of application forms the process of selection was taken up and finally the selected candidates were engaged by the end of August, 2003. 569 trained candidates were selected and were engaged. No untrained candidate was selected or engaged pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.03.2003. ORV Act was strictly followed. 225

candidates were engaged in Rairangpur Education District out of which 7 SC candidates and 36 ST candidates were there. The fact of such engagement was communicated to the Director, Elementary Education, Odisha vide letter No.713, dated 27.08.2003. The copy of letter No.713, dt.27.08.2003 is annexed herewith as Annexure-A/3. The petitioner did not come within the zone of selection for engagement of Swechhasevi Shiksha Sahayak out of the posts earmarked in the advertisement published."

2.5. Many similarly situated disengaged Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaks came up before this Court and all such cases were disposed of in a batch of matter, namely, Dasharathi Hembram Vs. State of Odisha and Others, WP(C) No.5398 of 2018 and etc., etc.. Common judgment dated 22nd December, 2023 has been rendered in said cases by a learned Single Judge of this Court refusing relief claimed by the writ petitioners.

2.6. The case of the appellant, being one of the writ petitions in the said batch of matters, in the present intra-Court appeal said judgment of the learned Single Judge is challenged.

3. Since there was delay of 421 days in filing the writ appeal, the case of the appellant stood dismissed by an Order dated 15.07.2025. The appellant having approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.31362 of 2025 (Civil Appeal No.13498 of 2025, an

Order dated 10.11.2025 was passed with the following observation:

"*** Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant that the matter required hearing on merits, which has admittedly, not been done. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed and the writ appeal No.732 of 2025 stands restored to its original file and number before the High Court. The High Court shall proceed to hear the matter on merits. ***"

3.1. Accordingly, this matter is heard on merits today. Heard Sri Abhishek Naik, learned advocate for the appellant and Sri Kailash Chandra Kar, learned Government Advocate.

4. Learned counsel submitted that as the appellant served as Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak for a substantial number of years, instead of regularizing her service, the Office Order disengaging her is tainted with arbitrariness. On an erroneous appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. It is submitted that since the appellant had worked for several years, the respondents should have considered for regularization of service in view of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1.

5. Sri Kailash Chandra Kar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the Order dated 29th April, 2004 passed in WP(C) No.11748

of 2003, whereby this Court declared the engagements of the Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaks after 26.09.2003 invalid, as a result of which the School and Mass Education Department directed all the Collectors of the State vide Letter dated 06.03.2006 to disengage the Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaks engaged after the said date. Against the aforesaid order dated 29th April, 2004 of this Court, leave to appeal being SLP(C) No.3504 of 2007 was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which stood dismissed on 16th August, 2013.

5.1. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that similarly situated Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaks, who were disengaged pursuant to the Order dated 29th April, 2004 passed in WP(C) No.11748 of 2003 of this Court and got selected in the subsequent recruitment prayed before this Court in WP(C) No.1751 of 2012 for counting their past services for continuity in service. However, this Court declined to accede to their prayer by observing that their engagement after 26.09.2003 being invalid, period of past service cannot be counted.

5.2. Under the above premises, the learned Government Advocate prayed for dismissal of the present appeal, being devoid of merits. He citing the Order dated 13 th August, 2024 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Dasarathi Hembram Vrs. State of Odisha and others, WA No.552 of 2024, submitted that one of the writ

petitioners in the batch of matters challenged the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.5398 of 2018 before the Division Bench, which got dismissed on 13.08.2024. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may not vary with the view already expressed by the coordinate Bench in the similar set of fact- situation, that too the very same Judgment, being upheld by this Court in the Division Bench.

6. Carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records and documents enclosed to the writ petition as also the writ appeal.

6.1. As is revealed from copy of Order dated 19.06.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.11006 of 2015 (Pramod Kumar Sahoo Vrs. State of Odisha) that "A batch of writ petitions was filed challenging the action of the State Government in appointing persons more than the vacancies advertised. Therefore, this Court in W.P.(C) No.11748 of 2003 quashed the appointment of persons in excess of advertisement." From reading of Office Order dated 26th March, 2018 (impugned in the writ petition) it has come to fore that the disengagement of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaks was directed in terms of School and Mass Education Department Letter No.18563/SME, dated 26.09.2017 and pursuant to decision of this Court in WP(C) No.11748 of 2003 and WP(C) No.1751 of 2012.

6.2. It transpires that on 4th May, 2006, the Government of Odisha in School and Mass Education Department has issued the following letter addressed to all the Collectors:

"Sir,

I am directed to invite reference to this Deptt. Letter No.5682 dt.6.3.2006 and to say that out of 5,292 nos. of SSS who are affected by the order of Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No.11748/03, dt.29.4.04, some SSS have filed writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court against the disengagement order of this Deptt. under reference. The Hon'ble High Court in a number of cases, in their interim orders have passed following directions.

"in the interim, if the petitioners are continuing as Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak, they shall not be disengaged without leave of this Court".

The Govt. in School and Mass Education Department, after careful examination of the interim orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court, in consultation with Law Deptt. have decided as follows:

1. Only such persons who have obtained interim orders of the Hon'ble High Court shall not be disengaged until further orders of Hon'ble High Court if they are continuing as such on the date of passing the interim order.

2. The interim orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be made applicable in respect of the petitioners who have been made parties in the writ petition.

3. The interim orders of the Hon'ble High Court have no general application to all those 5292 persons who have not made parties in the writ petitions."

6.3. Scrutiny of documents enclosed to writ petition makes it clear that after 26.09.2003, the engagement of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaks were found to be invalid.

The learned Single Judge in judgment dated 22nd December, 2023 passed in WP(C) No.5398 of 2018 and batch including therein the matter in W.P.(C) No.7525 of 2018 filed by the present appellant, observed as follows:

"41. When the recruitment process is declared null and void in WP(C) No.11748 of 2003 the petitioner is ceased to be an employee of Shikshya Sahayak and even though he has been allowed to work for the said period cannot be counted. The Government also directed all Collectors to disengage the Swechhasebi Shikshya Sahayak engaged after 26.09.2003 and not selected subsequently and when the SLP No.3504 of 2007 was dismissed in the Supreme Court, there is no necessity of issuing show cause notice or to hear the petitioner personally. Only the orders of the Courts have been carried out. Though the petitioner got appointment on the basis of selection, the process of recruitment has been declared null and void by the Court of Law. Moreover, the Govt. made a policy decision to disengage them. Hence, there is no need of personal hearing.

42. Additionally, after disposal of WP(C) No.11748 of 2003 when the engagement of Swechhasebi Shikshya Sahayak after 26.09.2003 was declared null and void, 7187 persons were reselected for engagement. The Court vide order dated 23.12.2004 passed in WP(C) No.13958 of 2004

and batch of cases directed that the Swechhasebi Shikshya Sahayaks who have not been reselected in the current merit list shall continue until further orders. As such the petitioner continued in service. Therefore, the order of disengagement is not illegal."

6.4. In such view of the matter while finding no infirmity in the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, it may be apt to state that the reliance placed on Umadevi (supra) by the counsel for the appellant is misplaced as the engagement of the appellant was beyond the number of posts advertised and though she was not re-selected, being protected by virtue of interim orders she continued in service.

6.5. Furthermore, it is pertinent to have regard to the Order dated 13.08.2024 passed in Dasarathi Hembram Vrs. State of Odisha, W.A. No.552 of 2024, intra-Court appeal of one of the Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaks in the batch of writ petitions, wherein the impugned Judgment dated 22nd December, 2023 by the learned Single Judge was challenged. The Division Bench in said Order dated 13.08.2024 made the following observations:

"9. After having perused the pleadings on record and considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, it can be easily inferred that the appellant's initial selection was against a post which was not advertised. Accordingly, this Court had declared all such

engagements to be null and void. On the strength of certain interim orders passed by this Court, the appellant continued in service. The appellant could not have successfully claimed his right to be engaged based on his name figuring in the provisional select list in the absence of any assertion that any less meritorious candidate was appointed ignoring his case. The plea of absence of show-cause notice before termination of services of the appellant is not acceptable in the present set of facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant cannot claim continuance on basis of a selection which came to be held to be null and void. The appellant continued even after the selection process was declared null and void on the strength of an interim order passed in the writ petition. The writ petition having been dismissed, the appellant's claim to continue does not survive any more.

10. In such view of the matter, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge requiring this Court's interference in the present intra-court appeal."

6.6. In the present writ appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant could not demonstrate that such observations made in the above referred writ appeal were perverse and not borne on record. As a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court found no legal infirmity in the common judgment dated 22.12.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.5398 of 2018 and batch (including the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.7525 of 2018 filed by the present appellant), this Court is not inclined to take a different view.

6.7. When it is pleaded before the writ court that the case of appellant is identical to the batch of matters tagged to W.P.(C) No.5398 of 2018, and having taken up all the matters together for hearing, a common Judgment dated 22.12.2023 was delivered. In one of the matters therein, viz., Dasarathi Hembram Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.5398 of 2018, against which appeal was preferred and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court with a detailed reasoned order on merit disposed of said appeal (W.A. No.552 of 2024) vide Order dated 13.08.2024, this Court is afraid to take a different view.

6.8. No bench can comment on the functioning of a co-

ordinate bench of the same Court, much less sit in judgment as an appellate court over its decision. It will be open only for a Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted. [See, Government of NCT of Delhi Through its Secretary, Land and Building Department & Another Vrs. M/s. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others, (2024) 5 SCR 949].

6.9. In the given set of fact-situation this Court does not find any ground to treat the appellant (writ petitioner) in

discrimination to that of other writ petitioner/appellant whose matter attained finality. Taking a view different than what was decided in W.A. No.552 of 2024 vide Order dated 13.08.2024 would create piquant anomalous situation and it would create chaos in administration of justice and implementation of the order of the Division Bench. This Court is reminded of to adhere to the principle laid down in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Vrs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 2 SCC 673 that to differ with the earlier decision of Bench of coequal strength would be detrimental not only to "the rule of discipline" and the "doctrine of binding precedents" but it will also lead to "inconsistency in decisions on points of law", "consistency and certainty"

in the development of law and its "contemporary status"

would be immediate casualty.

6.10. To put it straight, if the view expressed in Order dated 13.08.2024 in W.A. No.552 of 2024 is varied and/or the submission and argument of the learned counsel for the present appellant is allowed, it would tantamount to treating the similarly situated persons differently when both have suffered common judgment of the learned Single Judge which was upheld by the Division Bench. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to show indulgence in the present matter.

7. This Court does not find any merit in the contentions and arguments of the counsel for the appellant in the present appeal as this Court in W.P.(C) No.11748 of 2003 quashed the appointment of persons in excess of the advertisement. The Office Order dated 26.03.2018 issued by the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj disengaging the appellant is in conformity with the Orders of this Court in W.P.(C) No.11748 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No.1715 of 2012. Therefore, this Court desists from interfering with the Judgment dated 22.12.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.7525 of 2018.

8. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed and Interlocutory Application(s), pending if any, shall stand also dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

(HARISH TANDON) CHIEF JUSTICE

(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) JUDGE

Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 7th January, 2026//MRS/Laxmikant Date: 09-Jan-2026 12:28:51