[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Muralidhar Behera vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 7 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.4115 of 2026
Muralidhar Behera ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Ms. Sonita Biswal
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. S. Behera, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
07.03.2026
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State. Perused the writ
application as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. By filing the present writ application the Petitioner has
prayed for the following relief.
"In view of the facts stated above and the
grounds, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ
of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or
order, directing the Opp.parties to appoint the petitioner
as Shikshya Sahayak against the unfilled vacancies in
terms of judgment dt.19.12.2025 by this Hon'ble Court
in W.P.(C) No.32208/2023 and batch under Annexure-
4;
And pass such other writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as
may be deemed just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and
equity;
And for this 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 has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction
to the Opposite Parties to appoint him as a Shikshya Sahayak against
unfilled vacancies in the post of Shikshya Sahayak in terms of the
judgment of this Court in Dhaneswar Das and others vs. State of
Odisha and others, bearing W.P.(C) No.32208 of 2023 and a batch
of similar other matters, which were disposed of vide a common
judgment dated 19.12.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture conducted
that no writ appeal have been preferred an appeal the judgment dated
19.12.2025 Dhaneswar Das's case (supra) has attained finality. He
further contended that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered
by the ratio laid down in the abovenoted case. In such view of the
matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite
Parties be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner along with as
per the decision taken in the case of Dhaneswar Das and others,
who were the Petitioners in the above noted writ petitions disposed
of vide judgment dated 19.12.2025.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
although he has no specific instruction in the matter. However, on a
close analysis of the pleadings in the writ application it appears that
the Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the
Opposite Parties to consider his candidature against the unfulfilled
vacancies to the post of Shikshya Sahayak. He further submitted that
no such direction ought to be passed at this stage since it is likely to
cause prejudice to other similarly situated candidates, some of whom
may have a better claim than the present Petitioner. Learned counsel
for the Opposite Party also objected the present writ petition on the
ground that the Petitioner has not approached the Opposite Party first
for redressal of such grievance before approaching this Court. In such
view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that in the
event this Court directs grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the
Opposite Party No.3 i.e. State Project Director, Odisha, Samagra
Sikshya Programme Authority to consider the case of the Petitioner
in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time, he will
have no objection to the same.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the respective Parties, on a careful analysis of
the factual background of the present case, further taking note of
limited nature of the grievance involved in the present writ
application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition
at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to
approach the Opposite Party No.3 by filing a detailed representation
taking therein all the grounds along with the copies of the judgments
relied upon in support of Petitioner's claim, within two weeks' from
today. In such eventuality, Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to
consider such representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance
with law and in terms of the ratio laid down by this Court in
Dhaneswar Das's case (supra), a copy of the judgment of which is
attached to the writ application as Annexure-4, and dispose of the
representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned
order within eight weeks' from the date the Petitioner approaches the
Opposite Party No.3. The final decision so taken be communicated
to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. This Court further makes
it clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
matter.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Sisir
Designation: Personal Assistant
