[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Tikeswar Meher And Others 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.8805 of 2026
Tikeswar Meher and others ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Subhadutta Routray
-versus-
State of Odisha and others. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC
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 Petitioners as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as
well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioners have 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
09.11.2023 under Annexure-7 so far it relates to the
Petitioners 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 09.11.2023 under
Annexure-7 so far it relates to the petitioners.
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
petitioners against the TGT post and allow them scale
of pay corresponding to TGT post keeping in view
that the petitioners 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
petitioners 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 31.12.2015 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 Petitioners
along with other eligible candidates submitted their candidature.
Eventually, the Petitioners were selected for appointment to the post
of Sikshya Sahayak, and accordingly, they were issued with an
engagement order dated 09.05.2016.
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 Petitioners,
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
Petitioners was regularized as a Matric C.T. Teacher on 09.11.2023.
6. The grievance of the Petitioners in the present writ petition is
that although the Petitioners are having B.A. B.Ed. qualification and
are eligible to be appointed as a T.G.T. Teacher, however, they have
been regularized in the post of Matric C.T. Teacher. In the aforesaid
context, learned counsel for the Petitioners 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 Petitioners
contended that the conduct of the Opposite Parties in regularizing the
Petitioners 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 Petitioners 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 09.11.2023 at
Annexure-7, whereunder the service of the Petitioners 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 Petitioners have any grievance, they 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 Petitioners 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 Petitioners 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
