Subas Chandra Mansingh Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Subas Chandra Mansingh Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay in filing the appeal condoned; appeal allowed; impugned order in G.I.A. Case No.179 of 2014 of the State Education Tribunal set at naught; matter remanded to the State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar to hear all stakeholders and decide afresh within three months and report compliance to the Registrar General; all contentions of the parties kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of about three years in filing FAO No.271 of 2023 ought to be condoned (I.A. No.459 of 2023). +1 more

Court's answer

An appeal of this kind cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the delay is long, where the explanation offered for the delay is found plausible; condonation of delay adds no merits to the appellant's case to the detriment of others. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie, the reasoning of the impugned order does not reflect due application of mind to the ratio in State of Odisha v. Lokanath Behera, 2018 (II) OLR 932, and therefore the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Statutory Tribunal under section 24-B of the Odisha Education Act, 1969; the appeal is favoured and the impugned order in G.I.A. Case No.179 of 2014 is set at naught, with all contentions kept open.

Key takeaways

On remand, the State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar shall give opportunity of hearing to all stake holders and finally decide the matter afresh within an outer limit of three months, reporting compliance to the Registrar General of this Court; any adjournment taken by the appellant shall be discounted while computing the prescribed timeline.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court, Cuttack (Dixit Krishna Shripad, J.), FAO No.271 of 2023, order dated 27.11.2025. (1) I.A. No.459 of 2023: delay of about three years in filing the appeal condoned — the Court held that an appeal of this kind cannot be rejected merely because the delay is long when the explanation offered is plausible, and that condonation adds no merits to the appellant's case to the detriment of others. (2) Both sides agreed with the Court's suggestion that, prima facie, the reasoning of the impugned order passed in G.I.A. Case No.179 of 2014 by the State Education Tribunal does not reflect due application of mind to the ratio in State of Odisha v. Lokanath Behera, 2018 (II) OLR 932, requiring reconsideration at the hands of the Statutory Tribunal under section 24-B of the Odisha Education Act, 1969. Appeal allowed; impugned order set at naught; matter remanded to the State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar to afford hearing to all stakeholders and decide afresh within an outer limit of three months, reporting compliance to the Registrar General; all contentions kept open; adjournments taken by the appellant to be discounted from the timeline.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

FAO No.271 of 2023

Subas Chandra Mansingh …. Appellant

Mr.Chandrakanta Nayak, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha & Others

CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

ORDER

27.11.2025

I.A. No.459 of 2023

Order No. 03 This application has been moved seeking condonation of delay of about than three years. An explanation has been offered to the delay brooked. The appeal of the kind cannot be rejected only on the ground that the delay is too long even when explanation is found to be plausible. Condonation of delay would not add any merits to the case of the appellant to the detriment of the others.

In the above circumstances, the application having been allowed, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

( Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

FAO No.271 of 2023

04. Both the sides having argued the matter vociferously for some time, now agree with the

Page 1 of 1

suggestion of this Court that prima facie the reasoning of the impugned order does not reflect due application of mind to the ratio in State of Odisha v. Lokanath Behera, 2018 (II) OLR 932 and therefore, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Statutory Tribunal under section 24-B of the Odisha Education Act, 1969.

In the above circumstances, the appeal having been favured and impugned order passed in G.I.A. Case No.179 of 2014 passed by the State Education Tribunal having been set at naught, the matter is remanded to the portals of State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, which shall give opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders and finally decide the matter afresh within an outer limit of three (3) months and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

It is made clear that the adjournment taken by the appellant shall be discounted while computing the timeline prescribed by this Court.

Web copy of order to be acted upon by the parties concerned.

( Dixit Krishna Shripad) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Judge

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 29-Nov-2025 12:54:03

Basu

Page 2 of 2