[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Miss Rina Rani Patro vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 13 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.7747 of 2026
Miss Rina Rani Patro ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Sameer Kumar Das
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. D.K. Sahoo, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
13.03.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application
as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"Under the above circumstances, it is
therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court
be pleased to direct the Opp. Party No.1 to
reinstate the petitioner on the representation of
the Director and consequential direction to the
Opp. Parties to approve the appointment of the
petitioner and to reinstatement in service with
all benefits as available under the statute more
preferably under the provisions of GIA Order,
2008 as that has been paid to other employees of
the state within a stipulated period and deem fit
and proper;
And/or issue any other appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit
and proper in the fitness of the case;"
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
being aggrieved by the decision of the Opposite Party in terminating
the Petitioner from service, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before
the Director, Higher Education, Odisha. During the pendency of the
aforesaid appeal the Petitioner approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C) No.24767 of 2014 which was disposed of by order dated
19.12.2014. The learned Coordinate Bench disposed of the writ
petition by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to dispose of the
representation/appeal preferred by the Petitioner within a stipulated
period of time.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture further
contended that as per the aforesaid order passed by this Court the
appellate authority, i.e. Higher Education vide his order dated
28.04.2016 disposed of the representation/appeal preferred by the
Petitioner with an observation that the claim of the Petitioner seems
to be genuine and further requested the Government to take
appropriate action in compliance to order dated 19.12.2014 passed in
the previous writ petition.
6. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is
that despite such order dated 28.04.2016 the Opposite Party No.1
has not taken any follow up action, as a result of which, the
Petitioner is seriously prejudiced. At this juncture learned counsel
for the Petitioner expresses his apprehension that the Opposite
Parties are taking steps to fill up the post which was earlier held by
the present Petitioner. He further submitted that in the event the post
is filled up by somebody else, then she would be entitled to the
grant-n-aid attached to the first post of lecture in History in S.D.
Women's Higher Secondary School, Aska Road.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
he has no specific instruction in the matter. He further contended
that as his evidence from the pleadings in the writ petition that the
earlier writ petition of the Petitioner was disposed of with a direction
to the Opposite Parties-State to dispose of the representation an
appeal of the Petitioner. He further contended that in the event such
appeal/representation has been disposed of vide order dated
28.04.2016 as he is evident from the document at Annexure-1, then
the Petitioner should have approached the Government in the
Department of Higher Education for taking further follow up
necessary action. He further submitted that it appears that the
Petitioner had earlier approached the Principal Secretary, School and
Mass Education Department by filing a representation on 15.09.2022
as per Annexure-2. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for
the State contended that although the present writ petition is
premature, however, in the event this Court directs the Opposite
Party No.2 to consider the grievance of the Petitioner in accordance
with law, he will have no objection to the same.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their
submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the
writ petition, further taking note of the order passed in the earlier
writ petition as well as the consequential order so passed by the
appellate authority on 28.04.2016 as per Annexure-1, this Court
deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to
the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a fresh
representation taking therein all the grounds along with all
supporting documents within two weeks from today. In such
eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall take a final decision as per
the applicable rules and guidelines within a period of four weeks
thereafter. The final decision so taken be communicated to the
Petitioner within ten days thereafter. It is further directed that till a
decision is taken on the representation of the Petitioner the manner
as has been directed hereinabove the grant-n-aid / block grant
sanction in respect of first post of lecture in History of the S.D.
Women's Higher Secondary School, Aska Road shall not be relieved
till that date.
7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Reason: Authentication Page 4 of 4.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 17-Mar-2026 10:13:40
