Allowed¶28

Samanwita Rout v. State of Odisha

School Admission – Class-VI – Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya

Orissa HC4 Sept 2025WP(C)/15834/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; W.P.(C) No.15834 of 2025; Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad; school admission Class-VI; Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya (OAV) employee wards preference; separate class versus Government servant/PSU reserved categories; entrance test score 38/60; rejection order dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure-6) set aside; admission directed immediately; compliance report to Registrar General within four working days.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned rejection order dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure-6) set aside; OP No.6-School directed to admit petitioner to Class-VI subject to compliance of usual conditions, immediately; report of compliance to be submitted to the Registrar General of the Court within four working days. ¶28

Samanwita Rout Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a ward of an employee of the School (Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya), was wrongly denied admission to Class-VI despite the policy guidelines granting preference and priority to wards of OAV employees as a separate class qua children of Government servants and Public Sector Undertakings. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Children of the employees of the School in question are to be treated as a separate class qua the children of Government servants or Public Sector Undertakings for the purpose of admission to the School, as apparent from paragraph-5 VI & XII of the policy guidelines at Annexure-1.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order/action of the OPs runs counter to the intent and policy content of the admission guidelines and is therefore unsustainable.

¶26

Key takeaways

The OPs' objection fails to differentiate between children of the School's employees and children of other reserved categories (State Government and Public Sector Undertaking employees); this is a gross error apparent on the face of the record, has put the petitioner to prejudice, and must be set at naught.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

School Admission - Class-VI - Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya - Policy guidelines (Annexure-1, paras 5.VI & XII) constitute wards of OAV employees as a separate class entitled to preference/priority in admission qua wards of Government servants and Public Sector Undertakings, subject to appearance in the Entrance Test - Rejection of petitioner's admission by order dated 30.05.2025 unsustainable as OPs failed to differentiate her category, a gross error apparent on the face of the record causing prejudice - Writ petition allowed; rejection order set aside; School directed to admit petitioner to Class-VI immediately subject to usual conditions; compliance report to Registrar General within four working days.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.15834 of 2025

¶3

Samanwita Rout

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. K. Rath, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. J.K. Ray, ASC

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

ORDER

Order No. 03.

04.09.2025

Petitioner-Cha. Samanwita Rout represented by her mother is grieving before the Writ Court against denial of her admission to Class-VI in OP No.6-School.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, drawing attention of the Court to policy guidelines of admission applicable to the School in question, submits that the children of the employees of the School, namely, Adarsh Vidyalaya Sangathan are entitled to the benefit of preference and priority qua the children of Government servants and Public Sector Undertakings; the admission having been denied contrary to this policy, the Court should come to aid of the petitioner.

¶17

Learned ASC representing the OPs having filed counter affidavit opposes the petition contending that whatever decision has been taken by the jurisdictional OPs is consistent with the policy guidelines; petitioner scored 38 marks out of 60, which is comparatively low qua other children and therefore, interference

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

of this Court is warranted. In support of this, he loudly read out paragraphs 7 & 9 of the counter.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter, inasmuch as the children of the employees of the School in question are to be treated as a separate class qua the children of Government servant or Public Sector Undertakings for the purpose of admission to the School in question. This is apparent from paragraph-5VI. & XII. of the policy guidelines at Annexure-1.

¶21

4.1. In support of my above view, the subject paragraphs of policy guidelines are reproduced:

¶22

“5. Reservation

¶23

VI. The Collector & District Magistrate as the Chairman of the Management Committee can allow 02 (Two) seats for Class VI only within the total number of 80 students and in the respective categories to which the children belong for admission of orphan children on priority / the wards of the employees of Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya, in exceptional cases to provide opportunities to deprived/ deserving children. It is mandatory that the recommended child must have appeared the Entrance Test to avail the recommendation.

¶24

XII. Preference will be given in admission to the wards of employees of OAVs on priority basis. They have to appear the entrance test as they will be selected against the posts earmarked for respective category.”

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

The impugned order or action of the OPs runs counter to the intent and policy content and therefore, is unsustainable.

¶27

4.2. The essential objection of the OPs, as is reflected in their counter, does not differentiate between children of the employees of the School in question and the children of other reserved categories, such as employees of State Government and other Public Sector Undertakings and therefore, there is a gross error apparent on the face of the record which has put the petitioner to prejudice and therefore, the same has to be set at naught.

¶28

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed; the impugned rejection order dated 30.05.2025 at Annexure-6 is set aside coupled with a direction to OP No.6-School to admit petitioner to Class-VI in the said School subject to compliance of usual conditions, immediately. Since classes are said to be running, this order has to be complied with immediately and report of compliance to be submitted to the Registrar General of this Court within four working days.

¶29

Web Copy of this order be acted upon by all concerned.

¶30

( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge

¶31

Anisha

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANISHA NANDA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Sep-2025 15:25:04

¶34

Page 3 of 3

Samanwita Rout v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samanwita Rout v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhabani Pr. Mishra Vs B.D.a.,Bbsr

Satyanarayan Hota Vs State of Odisha

Pramoda Kumar Singh Vs State of Odisha

Tunibala Pati Vs State of Odisha

Kumarmani Nayak Vs State

Taramani Surin Vs State of Odisha