Sudhir Kumar Lenka Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sudhir Kumar Lenka Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ of Certiorari issued quashing the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure-10); Writ of Mandamus issued to OP Nos. 2 & 3 to positively consider the petitioner's case for engagement as Physical Education Instructor (National Level Participant), treating him as having the requisite Sports Certificate at Annexure-2, within eight weeks, failing which heavy costs in thousands of rupees may be levied personally payable by erring officials at the next level of litigation; no costs imposed now.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's Sports Certificate at Annexure-2 answers/satisfies the required description in terms of Government letter dated 19.02.2013 (Annexure-5) reflected in the advertisement for engagement as Physical Education Instructor. +1 more

Court's answer

The Sports Certificate at Annexure-2 satisfies the requirement of the advertisement, which reflects Government letter dated 19.02.2013 at Annexure-5.

Ratio / Principle

The question of recognition by the State Government would not arise, since the Sports Certificate in question falls in a different category enlisted in the letter dated 19.02.2013 itself.

Key takeaways

Similarly placed persons must be similarly treated; the opposite parties offered no explanation in the counter for acting upon identical certificates of other similarly circumstanced candidates, so the petitioner with an identical certificate could not be denied engagement (Article 14 equality; golden rule per E.P. Royappa).ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.1333 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Dixit Krishna Shripad J.), Order dated 10.10.2025 — The petitioner's candidature for engagement as Physical Education Instructor was not considered pursuant to the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure-10), premised on the view that his Sports Certificate (Annexure-2) did not answer the requirement of Government letter dated 19.02.2013 (Annexure-5) reflected in the advertisement. Holding (i) that the Sports Certificate at Annexure-2 satisfies the advertisement's requirement, the question of State Government recognition not arising as the certificate falls in a different category enlisted in the letter itself, and (ii) that, no explanation having been offered in the counter for acting upon identical certificates of other similarly circumstanced candidates, similar cases must be treated similarly — dis-similarity bruising the soul of Article 14 (relying on K.I. Shephard v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 686 and E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555) — the Court allowed the petition: a Writ of Certiorari quashed the impugned order, and a Writ of Mandamus directed OP Nos. 2 & 3 to positively consider the petitioner for engagement as Physical Education Instructor (National Level Participant) treating him as holding the requisite Sports Certificate, within eight weeks, failing which heavy costs could be levied personally on the erring officials at the next level of litigation; no costs were imposed presently.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.1333 of 2025

Sudhir Kumar Lenka

…. Petitioner

Mr. S.K. Mahunta, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha & Others

…. Opposite Parties Mr. D. Lenka, AGA

CORAM:

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

Order No. 02.

ORDER 10.10.2025

Petitioner’s candidature for engagement as Physical Education Instructor having not been considered, he is complaining before the Writ Court.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner draws attention of the Court to the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 at Annexure-10, which is structured on the premise that the Sports Certificate at Annexure-2 does not answer the requirement of letter dated 19.02.2013, a copy where of avails at Annexure-5. He submits that the impugned decision is vitiated on two grounds: (i) the Sports Certificate at Annexure-2 answers the required description in terms of letter at Annexure-5 and (ii) others who have got identical certificates have been benefited by engagement of their services. Counsel presses into service Apex Court decision in K.I. Shephard v. Union of India , AIR 1988 SC 686 to the effect that his client has been step-motherly treated at the hands of the answering OPs.

Learned AGA-Mr. Lenka appearing for the OPs opposes the petition contending that the Sports Certificate in question does not

Page 1 of 3

answer the required description in terms of letter dated 19.02.2013 at Annexure-5; secondly, even if others have been granted engagement on the basis of similar certificate, there cannot be parity and equality unless what has been done to others is shown to be legal.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Sports Certificate at Annexure-2 should satisfy the requirement of the advertisement, which reflects Government letter dated 19.02.2013 at Annexure-5. The question of recognition of the State Government would not arise since the Sports Certificate in question falls in different category enlisted in the said letter itself.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner is more than justified in pressing into service the Apex Court decision in K.I. Shephard supra to the effect that similarly placed persons should be similarly treated and dis-similarity bruises the soul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No explanation is offered by filing the counter as to how in respect of other similarly circumstanced candidates, identical certificates have been acted upon for the engagement. Similar cases should be treated similarly, is the golden rule of equality, as held by the Apex Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu , AIR 1974 SC 555.

In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 at Annexure-10; a Writ of Mandamus issues to OP Nos.2 & 3 to positively consider case of the Petitioner for engagement as Physical Education Instructor (National Level Participant) treating him as

Page 2 of 3

having the requisite Sports Certificate, which is at Annexure-2. This should be done within a period of eight weeks, failing which at the next level of litigation heavy costs in thousands of rupees may be levied on personally payable by the erring officials.

Now, no costs.

Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.

( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge

Madhusmita

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Designation: Asst-Register-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 14-Oct-2025 10:51:05

Page 3 of 3