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. Perused the writ application as well as the
documents annexed thereto.
3. By filing the present writ application the Petitioner has filed
with the following relief:
"Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this
writ petition, issue rule Nisi calling upon the 0pp.
Parties to show cause as to why the 0pp. Parties shall
not be directed to transfer the petitioner from
Kendrapara district to Balasore district as per
provision prescribed and the proposal pending before
the O.P. No.2 since for last six month, vide Annexure-3
series, and issuing the writ of Mandamus directing the
0pp.Parties to transfer the petitioner from Kendrapara
district to Balasore district and posted in the Block,
where his spouse is working, considering the aspect of
social security to one caregiver Husband to his spouse
and old aged parents and the spouse who is a Govt.
employee in consonance to the provision of
rationalisation, within a stipulated period for the
interest of Justice.
And, pass any order/ orders as deemed just and
proper."
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner at the outset
contended that the Petitioner was initially selected and appointed as
a teacher and pursuant to such selection the Petitioner joined his
duty. He further submitted that the spouse of the present Petitioner is
also government employee working as a teacher under the
Government of Odisha. He further submitted that the Government of
Odisha, GA Department issued Office Memorandum dated
06.08.1986 thereby taking a policy decision with regard to the
posting of the working spouse at the same station, since both are in
government service. Accordingly, the School and Mass Education
Department. Government of Odisha issued a detailed guideline on
14.05.2025 with regard to transfer of teachers in the State of Odisha.
As per the guideline dated 14.05.2025 at Annexure-5, the Petitioner
is eligible to apply for transfer on the ground of working spouse and
accordingly he submitted a application.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended
that though the Petitioner is eligible for such transfer on the ground
of a working spouse and his case was recommended by the
concerned DEO, however, no decision has been taken by the
Transfer Committee of the concerned district. He further submitted
that the Transfer Committee has considered the cases of the similarly
situated persons who had applied for transfer on the ground of a
working spouse. It has been alleged that in the aforesaid process the
Petitioner has been discriminated against.
6. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Party in
discriminating the Petitioner, the Petitioner had no other alternative
but to approach this Court by filing the present writ application. In
course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended
that the Director, in his Office Order dated 08.10.2025, has
considered the case of 69 numbers of teachers for transfer on the
ground of working spouse and defence personnel. A copy of such
order has also been attached to the writ application at Annexure-4.
7. Finally, the Petitioner, on inquiry, received a communication
dated 19.01.2026 at Annexure-8 of W.P.(C) No.3995 of 2026
wherein it has been stated that a case of the similar Petitioner shall
be considered after completion of the annual HSC Examination
2026. While assailing such decision of the Opposite Parties, learned
counsel for the Petitioner contended that the guideline dated
14.05.2025 is valid for this academic year. Therefore, in the event
the case of the Petitioner is not considered, there is every possibility
that the guideline may be changed in the next academic year. In such
view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for a
direction to the Opposite Party to consider the case of the Petitioner
strictly in terms of the guideline dated 14.05.2025 at Annexure-5, by
taking into consideration the recommendation of the competent
authority at Annexure-5, within the current academic year.
8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
although he does not have any specific instruction in the matter,
however, taking into consideration the grievance of the Petitioner
involved in the present writ application, learned counsel for the State
submitted that in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party
No.2, the competent authority, to take a decision in the matter in
accordance with law and the applicable guidelines within a
stipulated period of time, he shall have no objection to the same.
9. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the respective Parties, on a careful examination of the
background facts as well as documents annexed to the writ
application, further keeping in view the guideline dated 14.05.2025
and the fact that such guideline has been given effect to in respect to
other similarly situated employees, this Court deems to fit proper to
dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the
Opposite Party No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner after
completion of the annual HSC Examination in the year 2026 before
end of the current academic session and any decision taken in favour
of the Petitioner shall be given effect to from the next academic year
without disturbing the Petitioner's posting for current academic
session.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
