[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sujata Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 20 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.2149 of 2026
Sujata Nayak ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Niranjan Nayak
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. A.Mohanty, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 20.03.2026
I.A. No.5310 of 2026
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Counsel for the Opposite Parties.
3. Considering the submissions made, the order dated 28.01.2026
is hereby recalled.
4. Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
5. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused
the writ application as well as the prayer made therein.
6. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"Under the above circumstance, it is therefore
humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
graciously pleased to admit the writ petition and after
hearing from both the parties issue a writ in the nature
of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction
or order by directing the opposite parties to reconsider
the case of the petitioner by transferring the petitioner
from the present school i.e. Nagpur Nodal High School,
Nagapur to her previous school i.e. Chintamani Nodal
Bidyapatha, Rench Sasan, Khelar within a stipulated
period of time as would be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
And/ or pass such other order or direction as deems fit
proper in the interest of justice."
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of transfer dated
23.10.2025 at Annexure-5 to the writ application has approached this
Court by filing the present writ application. In course of his
argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that
the Petitioner has been transferred from his present place of posting
by order dated 23.10.2025 to accommodate one Phalgu Mohapatra,
who has been arrayed as Opposite Party No.4 to the present writ
application. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the
Petitioner further submitted that the abovenoted Phalgu Mohapatra-
Opposite Party No.4 has been transferred on the request of MP/MLA.
He further submitted that the transfer of teachers on the
recommendation of MP/MLA has been held to be illegal by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ranjan Kumar
Tripathy and others vs. State of Odisha and others decided in
W.P.(C) No.20875 of 2025 and a batch of similar other writ
applications which were disposed of by a common judgment dated
27.11.2025.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the
transfer of Opposite Party No.4 to the post of Petitioner on the
recommendation of MP/MLA is bad in law in view of the judgment
of the Coordinate Bench in Ranjan Kumar Tripathy's case (supra).
As such, it was argued that the transfer of the Opposite Party No.4
vide order dated 23.10.2025 at Annexure-5 is illegal and
unsustainable. Moreover, once this Court holds that the transfer of
the Opposite Party No.4 is illegal and such transfer order is set aside,
then the Petitioner would be allowed to continue at his present place
of posting without disturbing him pursuant to the impugned order
dated 23.10.2025. He further contended that ventilating his grievance
the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.2 i.e.
Director Secondary Education Odisha, Bhubaneswar, by filing a
detailed representation dated 03.12.2025 at Annexure-6. Since no
final decision has been taken on such representation of the Petitioner,
keeping in view the ratio laid down in Ranjan Kumar Tripathy's
case, the Petitioner has challenged such inaction of the Opposite
Party No.2 and approached this Court by filing the present writ
application.
9. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
he has no specific instruction in the matter. However, taking into
consideration the grievance of the present Petitioner, in the event the
Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.2 for
redressal of his grievance, then he will have no objection if this Court
directs the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the grievance of the
Petitioner in terms of the ratio laid down by this Court in similar
matters within a stipulated period of time.
10. Considering such submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background
facts as well as the issue involved in the present writ application, this
Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ application by
granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation before
the Opposite party No.2 taking therein all the grounds along with all
supporting documents and the judgment relied upon by the Petitioner
within a period of two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the
Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the grievance of the
Petitioner within four weeks thereafter keeping in view the ratio laid
down by a coordinate bench of this Court in Ranjan Kumar
Tripathy's case (supra). The representation of the Petitioner shall be
disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order and such order
be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days from the date of
passing such final order.
11. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands
disposed of.
12. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
