[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Manjulata Behera vs State Of Odisha on 20 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.37539 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India)
Manjulata Behera .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha, represented .... Opposite Parties
by the Commissioner-cum-
Secretary to the
Government, School and
Mass Education Department,
Bhubaneswar and others
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty,
Learned Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 26.02.2026 / date of judgment : 20.03.2026
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner
praying for quashing the impugned Order No.1051 dated
26.03.2018(Annexure-7) passed by the Collector-cum-Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj(Opposite
Party No.3) relating to the disengagement of the petitioner
from Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka and to direct the
Opposite Parties through issuance of a writ of mandamus
for providing all the service and financial benefits accrued
in favour of the petitioner and to pass such other order or
orders as the Court deems just fit and proper.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, an advertisement
was made by the Director, Elementary Education
Orissa(Opposite Party No.2) on dated 25.03.2003
(Annexure-1) in The daily "Sambad" inviting applications for
the post of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka in Government
Primary Schools in different Education Districts. In that
advertisement, there were 419 posts of Swechhasevi
Sikshya Sahayaka for Rairangpur Education District to be
filled up. The minimum qualification for the said posts was
Matric Pass with C.T. and Graduation with B.Ed indicating
therein clearly that, untrained Scheduled Tribe and
Scheduled Caste candidates are eligible to apply for the said
post of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka and the provisions
of ORV Act are applicable to them.
In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioner
being an untrained +2 Arts candidate of Scheduled Caste
category applied for the same. Thereafter, the Collector-cum-
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj(Opposite
Party No.3) vide his Office Letter No.713 dated 27.08.2003
wrote a letter to the Director, Elementary Education, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.2) stating that, the selection
process as per advertisement dated 25.03.2003 has not been
over and after selection process is over, the select list shall
remain valid for one year, as per Resolution dated 03.10.2000
of the Government, for which, he may be permitted/allowed to
engage the waiting candidates of the select list. On the basis
of that letter dated 27.08.2003 of the Opposite Party No.3, the
Government took a decision and communicated the same to
all the Collectors of the State through Opposite Party No.1 as
per letter dated 29.06.2003 to give engagement to the waiting
candidates from the select list.
3. So, the petitioner was given appointment as
Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka vide Order No.209 dated
10.02.2004(Annexure-4) against one of fifteen(15) Matric
C.T./Matric Posts reserved for Scheduled Caste(Women).
4. The said circular/letter dated 26.09.2003 of the
Government of Orissa was quashed by this Court as per
order dated 29.04.2004(Annexture-5) passed in W.P.(C)
No.11748 of 2003 between Hrushikesh Bindhani and
others vrs. State of Orissa and others and direction was
given to make fresh advertisement for filling up the
vacancies of 15682 posts amongst the candidates, who were
eligible as on 26.09.2003.
5. In pursuant to the aforesaid direction made by this
Court in Annexure-5 dated 29.04.2004, the Opposite Party
No.2 made a fresh advertisement in the month of
September, 2004 for filling up of 15682 posts of
Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka in the State of Orissa
including 587 posts for Rairangpur Education District.
6. As, the petitioner was appointed on dated 10.02.2004
after 26.09.2003, she(petitioner) was asked to apply for the
same again as an in-service candidate, but, the petitioner
did not participate in that selection process, as she was
legally and validly appointed on dated 10.02.2004 as per
Annexure-4 in pursuant to the advertisement dated
25.03.2003.
While, the petitioner was continuing in her service
since 10.02.2004, i.e., for last fourteen(14) years, all of a
sudden, the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.3) as per Office
Order No.1051 dated 26.03.2018(Annexure-7) illegally and
arbitrarily disengaged the petitioner from her service on the
ground that, she (petitioner) was engaged after 26.09.2003
and she was not selected in the next selection process in
pursuant to the 2nd advertisement, which was made on the
basis of the order dated 29.04.2004 passed in W.P.(C)
No.11748 of 2003.
To which, the petitioner challenged by filing this writ
petition praying for quashing her said disengagement Order
No.1051 dated 26.03.2018 (Annexure-7) issued by the
Opposite Party No.3 on the ground that, she was validly
selected and appointed by the Opposite Parties, for which,
she(petitioner) should not have disengaged arbitrarily
compelling her to appear in the next examination for her
selection in the same post along with other grounds.
7. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
8. During the course of hearing of this writ petition,
learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
dated 17.10.2025 passed in RVWPET No.31 of 2025 by this
Court in a like nature of case of an another Swechhasevi
Sikshya Sahayaka candidate of the same Rairangpur
Education District like the petitioner between her(Banita
Behera vrs. State of Odisha and others).
9. It appears from the judgment dated 17.10.2025
between Banita Behera vrs. State of Odisha and others
in RVWPET No.31 of 2025 that, the petitioner in this writ
petition is similarly placed with the petitioner of the above
disposed of RVWPET No.31 of 2025.
Because, the same Annexure-7, to which, the
petitioner has challenged in this writ petition, the same
was also under challenge in RVWPET No.31 of 2025
and like the petitioner. The petitioner Banita Behera in
RVWPET No.31 of 2025 was serving as Swechhasevi
Sikshya Sahayaka on being appointed like the petitioner
and she(Banita Behera) was disengaged by the Opposite
Party No.3 in the same Annexure-7, but, that Annexure-7
relating to her disengagement was quashed as per judgment
dated 17.10.2025 passed in RVWPET No.31 of 2025.
10. When, the petitioner in this writ petition is similarly
placed with the petitioner in the aforesaid disposed of
RVWPET No.31 of 2025, then, as per law, judgment in this
writ petition is required to be passed alike with the
aforesaid judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed by this Court
in the RVWPET No.31 of 2025.
Because, it is the settled propositions of law that, like
cases are to be decided alike and similarly placed
applicant/petitioner is entitled to get equal treatment from
the Court without any discrimination.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already
been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Ardhendu Sekhar Rath and
another vrs. State of Odisha and others : reported in
2019(II) OJR-491 that,
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 prescribes
equality before law, law should be deal alike with all in
one class that, there shall be equity of treatment under
equal circumstances, which means "that equals should
not be treated unlike and unlike should not be treated
alike, likes should be treated as alike."
(ii) In a case between Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran
Nigam and others vrs. Bachan Singh : reported in
2009(SC)-2745 that,
As per Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is
that, all persons similarly placed shall be treated alike,
both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same
situation without any discrimination.
(iii) In a case between Anupama Mallick vrs. State
of Odisha and others decided in W.P.(C) No.5813 of
2026 at Para No.6 that, like the cases are to be
decided alike and similarly placed
applicants/petitioners are entitled to get equal
treatments from the Court without any discrimination.
11. So, applying the principles of law enunciated in the
ratio of the aforesaid decisions to this matter at hand, it is
held that, the petitioner in this writ petition being equal
with the petitioner in the disposed of RVWPET No.31 of
2025, she (petitioner) is entitled to get equal
treatment/judgment like the petitioner in RVWPET No.31 of
2025 and there cannot be any discrimination between
them, because, as per law all persons similarly
situated/placed should be treated similarly.
12. Therefore, there is no other alternative for this Court,
but, it is required under law to dispose of this writ petition
passing similar judgment in the line of the judgment dated
17.10.2025 of the aforesaid RVWPET No.31 of 2025.
13. Therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
allowed.
The disengagement Order No.105 dated
26.03.2018(Annexure-7) issued by the Collector-cum-
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.3) to the petitioner is
quashed being vitiated for breach of audi alteram partem
and non-application of mind to the
advertisement/cohortdistinction with the other similar
conditions indicated in para no.24 of the judgment
dated 17.10.2025 passed in the earlier RVWPET No.31
of 2025 by this Court.
14. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
disposed of finally.
Interim order, if any, passed earlier in any of the
petitions stands vacated.
( A.C. Behera )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 20th of March, 2026/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
