[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Achyutananda Dey vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 23 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.6113 of 2026
Achyutananda Dey ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Pitambar Panda
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. D.K.Sahoo, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 23.03.2026
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties.
Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with
the following prayer:
"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 Gajapati
district to Balasore district as per provision prescribed
and the impugned order dtd. 03.02.2026 shall not be
quashed under Annexure-10, and issuing the writ of
Mandamus directing the 0pp.Parties to transfer the
petitioner from Gajapati 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 rationalization, within a stipulated
period for the Interest of Justice while quashing the
order of rejection under challenged vide Annexure-10.
And, pass any order/ orders as deemed just and
proper."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that the Petitioner was initially appointed as a contractual
Teacher (TGT-CBZ) on 19.01.2013 in Govt. Upgraded High
School, Merapalli under D.E.O., Gajapati, Paralakhemundi.
Upon completion of six years of service, the service of the
Petitioner was regularised as Assistant Teacher (CBZ) in the
cadre of Junior SES. Upon confirmation of service, the
Petitioner applied for transfer on spouse ground on the basis of
the notification of Govt. of Odisha dated 01.10.2025 and
14.05.2025.
5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the
Petitioner further submitted that the wife of the Petitioner
namely, Madhusmita Patra, who serving as an Assistant Teacher
w.e.f. 30.11.2019 in Govt. High School, Tapandia in the district
of Balasore. Therefore, the Petitioner, who is serving in the
district of Gajapati applied for inter district transfer for the
academic session 2023-24 by submitting his online application.
6. In the present writ application, the Petitioner being
aggrieved by order dated 03.02.2026 at Annexure-10 has
approached this Court by filing the present writ application.
Referring to the impugned order, learned counsel for the
Petitioner contended that although the application of the
Petitioner was complete in all respect and there was vacancy in
Balasore district, the application of the Petitioner has been
rejected by the Opposite Party No.2, i.e., Director Secondary
Education, basically on two grounds-
i) The vacancy which was locked by the Petitioner in
the online portal was not actually objected vacancy
of TGT-CBZ Assistant Teacher in respect of
Balasore district. Such vacancy has been shown
erroneously due to a technical error in the online
portal.
ii) The service certificate of the spouse was not
produced before the Competent Authority for
consideration.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture
contended that although the vacancy position was shown in the
online portal and the Petitioner had locked his choice and along
with his application also submitted the service certificate of his
wife, however the same has not been considered by the Opposite
Parties. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that the impugned rejection order dated 03.02.2026 at
Annexure-10 is unsustainable in law.
8. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other
hand contended that the application submitted by the Petitioner
in the online portal was duly considered by the Opposite Party
No.2 as is evident from the impugned rejection order dated
03.02.2026 at Annexure-10. He further contended that the prayer
of the Petitioner was duly considered and rejected by passing a
speaking and reasoned order. Further, referring to the impugned
order, learned Additional Government Advocate contended
before this Court that the choice of the Petitioner was locked in
the online portal on the basis of a technical error. Therefore, the
case of the Petitioner has not been considered for transfer as
there was no actual vacancy in Balasore Education District. He
further submitted that the impugned rejection order also reveals
that the service certificate of the spouse of the Petitioner was
also not furnished before the authorities for consideration. In
such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended
that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality.
9. On a careful consideration of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for both sides as well as the
documents annexed to the writ application, further keeping in
view the factual background of the present writ application and
on a close scrutiny of the impugned rejection order dated
03.02.2026, this Court found that although a vacancy was shown
in the web portal and the Petitioner locked his choice, however
the same was subsequently found to be due to a technical error.
So far, the service certificate of the wife of the Petitioner is
concerned, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the
same was produced before the authority for consideration.
However, the same has not been deliberately considered and the
prayer of the Petitioner has been illegally rejected. In view of the
aforesaid position, this Court is of the view that the case of the
Petitioner has not been properly considered, particularly in terms
of the notification of the government with regard to continuance
of both the spouse at the same centre. Accordingly, this Court
has no hesitation setting aside the order dated 03.02.2026 at
Annexure-10. The same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is
remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2 for fresh
consideration of the grievance of the Petitioner strictly in
accordance with the rules and applicable notification of the
Government. The Petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite
Party No.2 along with a copy of today's order within two weeks
from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall
consider and dispose of the grievance of the Petitioner by
passing a speaking and reasoned order taking into consideration
the notification of the Government within a period of six weeks
from the date the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.2.
The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.2 be also
communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
application stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
