Dismissed¶20

Deeptilata Soren v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Dec 2025WA/1392/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganwadi Helper; cancellation of engagement 22.10.2024; Salabani Anganwadi Centre; Khunta Block; Mayurbhanj; Collector incompetent; Revised Guidelines; WP(C) No.29964 of 2024 (06.12.2024) liberty to appeal before Sub-Collector; delayed appeal; condonation of delay; ailment without corroborative documents; ipse dixit; appellate restraint; no interference absent perversity/irrationality/illegality; no sympathy; Single Bench WP(C) No.19641 of 2025 (23.07.2025); writ appeal dismissed 11.12.2025; WA No.1392 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

On a meaningful reading of the application for condonation of delay, no documents corroborate the statement pertaining to an ailment; the medical-ground claim rests on uncorroborated averments. ¶16

Deeptilata Soren Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the Single Bench order dated 23rd July, 2025 in WP(C) No.19641 of 2025 dismissing the writ petition, which upheld the Sub-Collector's rejection of the appellant's application for condonation of delay in filing her appeal against cancellation of her engagement as Anganwadi Helper.

¶13

Court's answer

On a meaningful reading of the application for condonation of delay, no documents corroborate the statement pertaining to an ailment; the medical-ground claim rests on uncorroborated averments.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

A court should not proceed simply on the ipse dixit of averments touching medical issues unless corroborative evidence is produced in support.

¶16

Key takeaways

The appellate court should be slow and circumspect in interfering with a Single Bench order rendered on the materials before it, unless it is perverse, irrational, illegal or contrary to settled law.ratio¶17
In appeals against orders of the court of first instance, the appellate court should not be swayed by empathy or sympathy but guided by settled legal parameters.ratio¶17
Finding no infirmity or illegality in the Single Bench order sustaining the Sub-Collector's rejection of condonation of delay, the writ appeal is dismissed as sans merits.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (WA No.1392 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Harish Tandon CJ and M.S. Raman J; order dated 11.12.2025) against the Single Bench order dated 23rd July, 2025 in WP(C) No.19641 of 2025 dismissing the writ petition. The appellant's engagement as Anganwadi Helper at Salabani Anganwadi Centre, Khunta Block, Mayurbhanj was cancelled on 22nd October, 2024. In WP(C) No.29964 of 2024 (disposed 6th December, 2024) the Court, noting the Collector was incompetent under the Revised Guidelines, granted liberty to appeal to the Sub-Collector and extended time. The appellant filed the appeal late; the condonation application pleaded ailment without supporting documents. Held: a court should not act on the ipse dexit of medical averments absent corroborative evidence; the appellate court must be slow and circumspect in disturbing a first-instance order unless it is perverse, irrational or illegal, and must not be swayed by sympathy. Finding no infirmity in the Single Bench order, the appeal was dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.1392 of 2025

¶2

Deeptilata Soren

¶3

…. Appellant

¶4

Mr. Chitta Ranjan Pattnaik, Advocate -versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and others

¶6

…. Respondents Mr. Saswat Das, AGA

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶9

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

11.12.2025

1. The appellant challenges the order dated 23^rd July, 2025 passed by the Single Bench in WP(C) No.19641 of 2025, by which the writ petition was dismissed having found no fault into the order passed by the Sub-Collector.

¶14

Undeniably the appellant was selected as Anganwadi Helper and joined in such capacity in Salabani Anganwadi Centre under Khunta Block in the district of Mayurbhanj. Her engagement was cancelled on 22^nd October, 2024, which constrained the appellant to approach the Collector, Mayurbhanj. Since the Collector, Mayurbhanj was found to be incompetent to consider and dispose of the grievances raised by the appellant in terms of the Revised Guidelines, the Court while disposing of writ petition being WP(C) No.29964 of 2024 on 6^th December, 2024 granted liberty to the appellant to file an appeal before the Sub-Collector within two weeks from date. Since the timeline as given in the said Revised Guidelines for approaching the authorities to adjudicate the grievance concerning the cancellation of the engagement is lapsed, the Court extended the time granting opportunity to the appellant to

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

approach the authority, who was not competent under the said Revised Guidelines. Despite such direction having passed, admittedly, the appellant did not file the appeal within the time indicated in the said order dated 6^th December, 2024 passed in WP(C) No.29964 of 2024. The appeal was filed after a considerable delay with an application for condonation of delay. Though the copy of the application for condonation of delay is not annexed to the instant writ appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant handed over the same to us. From the meaningful reading of the averments made in the said application for condonation of delay, we do not find any documents corroborating the statement pertaining to an ailment. The Court should not proceed simply on the ipse dixit of the averments touching upon the medical issues unless there is corroborative evidence produced in support thereof. The authority did not find the ground for condonation to be convincing nor did the Single Bench after taking into consideration the entire aspects, find the ground to be sustainable.

¶17

The Appellate Court should be slow and circumspect in interfering with the order of the Single Bench delivered on the basis of the materials produced before it unless the same is perverse, irrational, illegal and contrary to the settled proposition of law. The Court should not interfere with the order passed by the Single Bench exercising the discretion unless the discretion offends the core principles as indicated hereinabove. The Appellate Court should not be swayed by empathy and/or sympathy but should be guided by the settled legal parameters in dealing with an appeal against the order passed by the Court of first instance.

¶18

Since the Single Bench does not find any infirmity and/or illegality with the order of the Sub-Collector in rejecting an

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

application for condonation of delay, we do not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the said order. The appeal, sans merits, is dismissed.

¶21

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶22

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶23

MRS/Laxmikant

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Dec-2025 16:32:26

¶26

Page 3 of 3

Deeptilata Soren v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deeptilata Soren v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Aditya Enterpriser, Cuttack Vs State of Odisha

Prasanna Kumar Nayak Vs State of Orissa

Abha Engineering and Construction, Jagatsinghpur Vs State of Odisha

M/S.P.K.Satpathy Vs State

Age Tandi Vs Revenue and Disaster Management Department.Odisha

Dillip Kumar Khatai Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Cbdt), New Delhi