[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Sri Surekha Samal on 13 March, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.284 of 2025
W.A. No.1157 of 2024
W.A. No.1211 of 2024
W.A. No.1215 of 2024
W.A. No.1251 of 2024
&
W.A. No.1326 of 2024
In the matter of appeals under Section 10 of the Letter Patent of the
Patna High Court, read with Article-4 of the Orissa High Court
Order, 1948.
....
In W.A. No.284 of 2025
1. State of Odisha, represented through it's
Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to
Government, School & Mass Education
Department.
2. Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Bhadrak.
3. District Project Coordinator, Samagra
.... Appellants
Sikshya, Bhadrak.
-Versus-
1. Sri Surekha Samal.
2. Kalpana Panigrahi.
3. Jyotsnarani Giri.
4. Tapaswini Jena.
5. Banajini Mishra.
6. Pratima Manjari Kar.
7. Council of Higher Secondary Education,
represented through it's Secretary. .... Respondents
Advocates Appeared in this case:
For Appellants - Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA.
For Respondents - Mr.Mahendra Ku. Sahoo.
For R.1, 2 & 3.
Page 1 of 15
Mr.K.K.Swain,
For R.5
Mr.Sameer Ku. Das,
For R.6
Mr.Jayant Kumar Rath, Sr. Advocate
with Mr.D.N.Rath for Intervenor
Mr.Pranab Mishra,
Advocate for Intervenor
In W.A. No.1157 of 2024
Pratima Manjari Kar. .... Appellant
-Versus-
1. Surekha Samal.
2. Kalpana Panigrahi.
3. Jyotsnarani Giri.
4. State of Odisha, represented through it's
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, School & Mass
Education Department.
5. Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Bhadrak.
6. District Project Coordinator, Sarba Sikshya
Abhiyan, Bhadrak.
7. Tapaswini Jena.
8. Banajini Mishra
9. Council of Higher Secondary Education,
Orissa, represented through it's Secretary.
.... Respondents
Advocates Appeared in this case:
For Appellant - Mr.Sarat Ch. Dash.
For Respondents - Mr.S.K. Jee,
AGA for R.4, 5 & 6.
Mr.Mahendra Ku. Sahoo.
For Caveator
Page 2 of 15
In W.A. No.1211 of 2024
Tapaswini Jena. .... Appellant
-Versus-
1. State of Odisha, represented through it's
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, School & Mass
Education Department.
2. Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Bhadrak.
3. District Project Coordinator of Bhadrak of
S.S.A,. Bhadrak
4. Surekha Samal.
5. Kalpana Panigrahi.
6. Jyotsnarani Giri. .... Respondents
7. Banajini Mishra.
8. Pratima Manjari Kar.
9. Council of Higher Secondary Education, Proforma
Orissa, represented through it's Secretary. .... Respondents
Advocates Appeared in this case:
For Appellant - Mr.Jayant Kumar Rath, Sr. Advocate
With Mr.D.N.Rath,
For Respondents - Mr.S.K. Jee,
AGA for R.1, 2 & 3.
Mr.Mahendra Ku. Sahoo.
For R.4, 5 & 6
In W.A. No.1215 of 2024
Lizasmita Nayak. .... Appellant
-Versus-
1. State of Odisha, represented through it's
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, School & Mass
Education Department.
Page 3 of 15
2. Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Bhadrak.
3. District Project Coordinator of Bhadrak
S.S.A,. Bhadrak
4. Jayantilata Sahoo.
5. Jyotirmayee Nayak. .... Respondents
Proforma
6. Sanju Rana. .... Respondent
Advocates Appeared in this case:
For Appellant - Mr.B.Routray, Sr. Advocate
With Mr.D.N.Rath,
For Respondents - Mr.S.K. Jee,
AGA for R.1, 2 & 3.
Mr.Mahendra Ku. Sahoo.
For R.5.
Mr.N.C. Das.
For Intervenor
Ms.Diptirekha Nanda,
For Intervenor
In W.A. No.1251 of 2024
Sanju Rana. .... Appellant
-Versus-
1. State of Odisha, represented through it's
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, School & Mass
Education Department.
2. Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Bhadrak.
3. District Project Coordinator of Bhadrak
S.S.A.
4. Jayantilata Sahoo.
Page 4 of 15
5. Jyotirmayee Nayak. .... Respondents
6. Lizasmita Nayak. .... Proforma
Respondent
Advocates Appeared in this case:
For Appellant - Mr.S.K. Sarangi, Sr. Advocate
With Mr.D.N.Rath,
For Respondents - Mr.S.K. Jee,
AGA for R.1, 2 & 3.
Mr.Mahendra Ku. Sahoo.
For R.5.
In W.A. No.1326 of 2024
Banajini Mishra. .... Appellant
-Versus-
1. State of Odisha, represented through it's
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, School & Mass
Education Department.
2. Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Bhadrak.
3. District Project Coordinator, S.S.A. Bhadrak
4. Surekha Samal.
5. Kalpana Panigrahi.
6. Jyotsnarani Giri. .... Respondents
7. Tapaswini Jena.
8. Pratima Manjari Kar.
9. Council of Higher Secondary Education, Proforma
Odisha, represented through it's Secretary. .... Respondents
Advocates Appeared in this case:
For Appellant - Mr.Kunal Ku. Swain,
Page 5 of 15
For Respondents - Mr.S.K. Jee,
AGA for R.1, 2 & 3.
Mr.Mahendra Ku. Sahoo.
For R.4, 5 & 6.
....
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing : 12.03.2026 : Date of Judgment : 13.03.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.
In all these Intra Court Appeals, challenge is essentially to a learned
Single Judge's order dated 28.03.2024 whereby contesting Respondents'
W.P.(C) No.18706 of 2015 having been favoured, relief is accorded to them
as under:
"22.In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order under
Annexure-12 is hereby quashed. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are directed
to recast the merit list by excluding the Vocational/Upasastri candidates
(opposite party Nos.4, 5 and 6) and by issuing appropriate order of
engagement in favour of the petitioners either as Sikshya Sahayaks or in any
equivalent post without any further delay and in any case, not later than four
months."
2. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS:
2.1. The Collector of Bhadrak District, vide advertisement dated
08.12.2011, had invited applications for the posts of Sikshya Sahayaks. The
advertisement prescribed educational qualification of +2 Examinations in
Science/Arts/Commerce or its equivalent as declared by Appropriate
Authority coupled with C.T. Training. Respondents along with others had
applied for the post and got selected. In the Merit List of different categories,
the candidates with Vocational Course were not included. Some of those
candidates filed WP(C) Nos.6438 & 6458 of 2011. A learned Single Judge,
vide order dated 18.03.2011, directed consideration of the candidatures of
applicants, who had completed +2 Vocational Course with C.T. Training. He
had also directed reframing of the provisional Select List. Accordingly, that
was done.
2.2. At this stage, some of the candidates similarly circumstanced qua the
answering Respondents herein had raised a grievance before the authorities
that some of the applicants had done Vocational Course and Upasastri Course
by suppressing the fact of their passing +2 Arts/Commerce/Science
Examination. They having alleged fraud. Another learned Single Judge, vide
order dated 24.03.2011 entered in W.P.(C) No.7428/2011 directed the District
Project Coordinator, Bhadrak to consider the said grievance within three
weeks. Accordingly, an inquiry was conducted into the allegations of fake
certificates. Before concluding the inquiry, a second Merit List was drawn and
that included the candidates who had allegedly done Vocational Course and
Upasastri Course in a clandestine way. This was put in challenge in WP(C)
No.18256/2011 and yet another learned Single Judge vide order dated
15.07.2011 directed completion of the inquiry and taking of action based on
inquiry report with a rider that those who were facing the allegation shall not
be enlisted in the Merit List. Some of the candidates had filed an undertaking
that they had not passed any +2 Course Examination other than
Vocational/Upasastri Examination and that if this is found to be not true, they
could be disengaged from the post in question. Therefore, conditional
Engagement Orders were issued subject to the outcome of WP(C)
No.7478/2011 that was since pending.
2.3. The inquiry was concluded and it was found that all those candidates,
who had passed +2 Examination in Arts/Commerce/Science, had given the
false undertaking despite having prosecuted Vocational/Upasastri Courses in
contravention of Orissa Higher Secondary Act, 1982 & Orissa Higher
Secondary Regulations, 1983. Six such candidates including Resp. No.4-
Tapaswini Jena, Resp. No.5-Banajini Mishra & Resp. No.6-Pratima Manjari
Kar. Those candidates had filed WP(C) No.32024/2011 in which interim
protection from removal was granted by a learned Single Judge. Those of
them, who were not given Engagement Orders, had also filed W.P.(C)
No.5077/2014, etc. seeking a direction for issuance of Engagement Orders.
All these petitions were disposed off by a common order dated 05.05.2014
with the following direction:
"In view of the above, the Collector-cum-C.E.O. S.S.A. Bhadrak is directed to
take a decision by taking into consideration the show cause reply along with
the enquiry report after supplying copy of the enquiry report to the petitioners
and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to them. It is needless to
mention that if the petitioners have committed fraud by submitting the +2
Vocational course certificates contrary to the C.H.S.E. Act and the Regulations
then they shall be disengaged and consequently the merit list shall be recast.
The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of the certified copy of this order..."
2.4. In terms of the above order dated 05.05.2014, the inquiry was
concluded by the Collector with the participation of stake holders vide order
dated 21.08.2015 wherein he said that though there is evidence of suppression
of facts by the Vocational/Upasastri Candidates, nothing could be done in the
matter since their certificates have not been cancelled or withdrawn by the
Competent Authorities. He gave another reason that these candidates, on
being engaged, had put in 4-5 years of service. This order was put in challenge
by the answering Respondents in W.P(C) No.18706/2015. Another learned
Single Judge of this Court allowed the WP by making the impugned order. In
view of this order, W.P.(C) Nos.720/2016 also came to be disposed off. State
and O.Ps.4, 5 & 6 in WP(C) No.18706/2015 have filed W.A. No.284/2025 &
W.A. No.1157, 1211 & 1326/2024. Opposite Party No.4 & 5 in WP(C)
No.720/2016 have filed W.A. Nos.1215 & 1251/2024.
3. Learned AGA appearing for the State and learned Advocates appearing
for the private parties succinctly submitted that the impugned order is liable to
be voided, inasmuch as learned Single Judge has directed recasting of Merit
List in a sectarian way by excluding only OP Nos.4, 5 & 6 and further issuing
Engagement Orders in favour of other OPs either as Sikshya Sahayaks or in
any other equivalent post; strictly speaking it is not a case of fraud &
fabrication; subsequent acquisition of +2 HS qualification in Vocational
Stream is not a fraudulent act; as long as Vocational/Upasastri qualification is
not withdrawn by the Competent Institution, the certificates will have
unimpeachable validity; learned Single Judge was swayed away by the
individual undertaking given by these candidates; no direction for the
engagement of Resp. Nos.1 to 3 could have been given without ascertaining
their credentials. Learned Advocates appearing for the Respondents made
submission in justification of the impugned orders stating that the reasoning of
the learned Single Judge, as has been reflected in the impugned order dated
28.03.2024, is jurisprudentially justifiable.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
4.1. There is no dispute that the candidates in question having been selected
& engaged as Sikshya Sahayaks way back in April, 2011 have been
discharging their duties with no complaint whatsoever from any quarters.
Added, they have been promoted/regularized to the next level in a normative
way. Acting on the engagement, they have structured their lives and families
with no interruption. That being the position, disengaging the serving
candidates would spurn at reason, at law & at justice. That is the reason
learned Single Judge has not interfered with the Merit List/Selection List in its
entirety, more particularly when those who figured in the said list where not
made parties eo nomine to the Writ Petitions nor any explanation is offered for
not arraying them as OPs. Selectees, ordinarily, are proper & necessary parties
vide Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1963 SC 786.
Those who have been arrayed as OPs having been found culpable, have been
excluded from the fray of recruitment.
4.2. Learned Single Judge has taken a lot of pains in working out the
competing equities keeping in view ousting of all the candidates in a
wholesale way who have been working since decade & a half and those, who
have not been granted Engagement Orders despite their names figuring in the
final Select List. He has also kept in mind those, who had given a blatantly
false undertaking in the form of affidavit inter alia stating:
„„I, have not passed +2 Examination or equivalent examination from CHSC,
Orissa, before vocational courses. if anything contrary is established, I
shall be criminally prosecuted.‟‟
Keeping the above in consideration, learned Single Judge has directed
exclusion of Resp. No.4-Tapaswini Jena, Resp. No.5-Banajini Mishra &
Resp. No.6-Pratima Manjari Kar from the Selection List so that they would go
out of engagement. He has also considered the effect of fraud in terms of
Apex Court decision in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1
SCC 1. A finding recorded in the light of settled position of law cannot be
lightly interfered with in Intra-Court Appeals of the kind. Impugned order has
faltered the following view of Collector:
"Every Govt. Servant/Employee/Job Holder of this country is considered to
be a privileged person. If one gets a Govt. Job/Service and thereby secures
his daily bread it is like enjoying the early dawn after coming out of the
perpetual groom. When he/she comes so nearer to get a Govt. job/service, it
is very natural that he/she has not smart enough to declare the true facts"
4.3. Learned counsel Mr.M.K.Sahoo appearing for Resp. Nos.1, 2 & 3
vehemently submitted that on a conjoint reading of Section 2(i) & (j) of the
C.H.S.E. Act read with Regulations 107, 109 & 123 make it clear that two
Higher Secondary courses are impermissible for H.S.C passed candidates. In
support of this, he drew our attention to the order dated 05.05.2015 made in
WP(C) No.5077/2014 with 32 batch cases wherein it is observed as under:
"It is needless to mention that if the petitioners have committed fraud by
submitting the +2 Vocational course certificates contrary to the C.H.S.E.
Act and the Regulations then they shall be disengaged and consequently the
merit list shall be recast. The entire exercise shall be completed within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this
order."
Such a contention is not open to be canvassed on behalf of Respondents, who
have not laid a challenge to the impugned orders, subject to all just exceptions
into which their case does not fit. Added, those who have been already in
service since decade & a half with no complaint whatsoever, the Select List
cannot be set at naught in a wholesale way, they being not arrayed as OPs to
the WPs. Much is not necessary to deliberate in this regard.
4.4. The vehement submission of Mr. Jee that the learned Single Judge
could not have directed issuance of Engagement Orders to some of the
Respondents as Sikshya Sahayaks or in the alternative in some other
equivalent posts, does not merit acceptance. Years have rolled since the
recruitment process was undertaken. It is not that there are no vacancies in
teaching posts which can be approximately equated to the posts of Sikshya
Sahayaks or the like. This Court takes judicial congnizance of existing
vacancies in respect of which directions have been issued for filling the same
on a war footing, least the eligible candidates should become age barred. Even
here, learned Single Judge has structured his direction keeping in view the
Rules of Equity & Justice. That cannot be lightly interfered by this Court in
the absence of demonstration that there are no matchable posts or that there
are no such vacancies in which only three persons are directed to be
accommodated.
4.5. Learned counsel Mr. Kunal Swain passed on a bunch of decisions in
support of his contention that the long service rendered by a candidate itself
would satisfy the requirement of educational qualification. However, we have
refrained from referring to those decisions, inasmuch as they have not been
supplied to us in book form with notes of facts & the ratio decidendi
emerging from them by the application of known theories of churning out
ratio. Unless the Bar provides note-sheets prepared on the basis of a plethora
of rulings cited, it is difficult to read all the rulings in their full texts, whether
they are relevant or not. Such an exercise would consume a lot of public time
which can otherwise be saved for treating other worthy causes. It is high time
that a feasible method should be evolved in the matter of citing rulings with
gist of facts and the ratio, in specific reference to relevant paragraphs.
4.6. Learned Counsel Ms. Ananya Mishra appearing for the interveners
submits that, her clients were impleaded as OPs.5 & 6 to the WP No.720/2016
vide learned Single Judge's order dated 15.03.2024 made on IA No.
3015/2024 and despite that their names have not been reflected in the Cause
Titles of WA Nos. 284/2025 & 1215/2024. She draws our attention to the IA
No. 4833/2025 and IA No. 8132/2024 for arraying her clients as Respondents
to the subject Writ Appeals. On the similar line, another Counsel Mr. Pranab
Mishra also made submission, drawing attention to the IA No. 4832/2025
filed in WP No. 18706/2015. On perusal of records we noticed that no order
was passed on this Application. Be that as it may, notwithstanding the absence
of their names in the Cause Title of the Appeals, we have heard them on
merits. Both the learned Counsel submitted that their clients are the
beneficiaries of the impugned orders and therefore, whatever benefit that has
conferred on them cannot be taken away by favouring the Appeals. We
noticed the text of the operative portion of the impugned order. That shows
that no benefit has been conferred on them in any way. They have not
challenged the said order, either. Since, we are not inclined to interfere in
these Appeals, other submissions made by them in support of the impugned
order do not merit much deliberation.
In the above circumstances, these Appeals fail. The impugned
orders are to be implemented by the Authorities within an outer
limit of three (3) months, failing which they run the risk of
punitive action for contempt. Costs reluctantly made easy.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 13th day of February 2026/Basu
Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL.
Location: HIGH COURT OR ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 16-Mar-2026 14:16:01
