[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Trilochan Mahanta vs State Of Odisha And Others. ..... ... on 23 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.8552 of 2026
Trilochan Mahanta ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Subhadutta Routray
-versus-
State of Odisha and others. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. D.K. Sahoo, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
23.03.2026
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:
"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court be graciously pleased to:
i) Admit the writ application.
ii) Call for the record.
iii) Issue Rule NISI calling upon the opposite
parties more particularly Opposite Party No.3 as to
why the impugned order of regularization dated
16.10.2023 under Annexure-6 shall not be modified.
iv) If the opposite parties more particularly
opposite party No.3 fails to show cause or show
insufficient cause, issue a writ in the nature of
Certiorari or any other writ / writs, direction
/directions, order / orders by modifying the impugned
order of regularization dated 16.10.2023 under
Annexure-6.
v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other writ/writs, direction/directions directing the
Opp. Parties to regularize the service of the petitioner
against the TGT post and allow them scale of pay
corresponding to TGT post keeping in view that the
petitioner possess the required qualification within a
time frame to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
vi) And further allow all the consequential service
and financial benefits as due and admissible to the
petitioner within a time stipulated by this Hon'ble
Court.
vii) And/or pass any other order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper for the ends of justice."
4. The factual background of the case leading to filing the present
writ petition, in short, is that pursuant to an advertisement published
on 29.12.2015 by the Opposite Party No.3, a recruitment test was
carried out for appointment to the post of Sikshya Sahayak
(trained/untrained). Pursuant to such advertisement the Petitioner
along with other eligible candidates submitted their candidature.
Eventually, the Petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of
Sikshya Sahayak, and accordingly, he was issued with an
engagement order dated 28.05.2016.
5. While this was the position, the Government through Opposite
Party No.1 published a guideline with regard to engagement of
Sikshya Sahayak on 17.10.2023. Learned counsel for the Petitioner,
at this juncture, contended that on 29.10.2013 the Government of
Odisha approved 2226 number of posts of Sikshya Sahayaks.
Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.1 addressed a letter dated
05.08.2023 to the Collectors of the different Districts in the State of
Odisha for regularization of the service of Sikshya Sahayaks.
Pursuant to the aforesaid letter dated 05.08.2023, the service of the
Petitioner was regularized as a Matric C.T. Teacher on 16.10.2023.
6. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is
that although the Petitioner is having B.A. B.Ed. qualification and is
eligible to be appointed as a T.G.T. Teacher, however, he has been
regularized in the post of Matric C.T. Teacher. In the aforesaid
context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the judgment
of the Coordinate Bench in Geeta Bal v. State of Odisha and Ors.
decided in W.P.(C) No.12955 of 2021 vide judgment dated
23.09.2025, stated before this Court that the learned Coordinate
Bench has categorically held that such appointment of a person who
was holding TGT post against a Matric C.T. post is legally
unsustainable. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that the conduct of the Opposite Parties in regularizing the
Petitioner against the post of Matric C.T. Teacher is illegal. He
further submitted that necessary direction be given to the Opposite
Parties to regularize the Petitioner against TGT post.
7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended
that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however
taking into consideration the impugned order dated 16.10.2023 at
Annexure-6, whereunder the service of the Petitioner has been
regularized, the conduct of the Opposite Parties does not call for any
interference by this Court at this juncture. He further submitted that
in the event the Petitioner has any grievance, he should have
approached the Opposite Parties first instead of approaching this
Court by filing the present writ petition. On such ground, learned
counsel for the State contended that the present writ petition is
premature.
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 keeping in view the judgment of the Coordinate
Bench in Geeta Bal's case (supra), this Court deems it proper to
dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by granting
liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 by filing
a representation taking therein all the grounds along with all
supporting documents within three weeks from today. In such
eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall consider such
representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance of the Rules as
well as the applicable law and dispose of the representation by
passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks
thereafter. The final decision so taken be communicated to the
Petitioners within ten days thereafter.
9. 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
Debasis
