Binodini Nayak Vs State of Odisha

One Ramesh Chandra Parida was appointed as a Hindi Teacher vide order dated 14.12.1991. However, for remaining unauthorized absence, his services came to be terminated on 27.02.2004. To that vacancy, petitioner came to be appointed after selection vide order dated 05.01.2005 (Annexure-1). Her

¶20

Page 1 of 7

¶21

appointment was approved on 17.04.2012 with effect from 01.04.2008 vide Annexure-3. Mr. Parida challenged his termination in W.P.(C) No.7512 of 2012, which was dismissed on 19.07.2018. His Writ Appeal No.434 of 2008 also met the same fate on 08.03.2019. He carried the matter in C.A. No.4632 of 2024, which ultimately came to be allowed by the Apex Court vide order dated 02.04.2024 with a specific direction for reinstatement in service. As a consequence, he has been reinstated too.

¶22

2. As a fallout of reinstatement, the petitioner, who had put in more than twenty years of spotless service, was rendered jobless. He had requested the jurisdictional opposite parties to accommodate him in any of the vacancies in any aided schools. The District Education Officer, Balaosre mercifully made a recommendation to the Director, Secondary Education, vide letter dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure-14) that the petitioner may be accommodated in a post in one of the three schools enlisted in the said letter. However, the Joint Director of Secondary Education, Odisha vide order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure-15) negatived the of the in of the request petitioner gross disregard recommendation of the District Education Officer saying that the Review Petition vide Diary No.23085 of 2024 filed by the School

¶23

Page 2 of 7

¶24

Management was pending before the Apex Court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is airing his grievance in writ jurisdiction.

¶25

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that his client, having been appointed after due selection more than twenty years ago, and her appointment, having been approved by the jurisdictional authority on 17.04.2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2008. It is only by the conspiracy of circumstances that she has lost her job having put in such a long & spotless service as a teacher and therefore, the action of the answering opposite parties lacks reason and justice in denying a post despite recommendation by the District Education Officer. He also stresses the fact that the District Education Officer, Balasore, in his recommendation, has also enlisted three Aided Schools of same category wherein posts of the kind are left unfilled. He also points out that the order of appointment was not made subject to outcome of the litigation, which Mr.Parida would undertake, if any, and therefore, it cannot be treated as a pure case of appointment lis pendens.

¶26

4. Learned ASC appearing for the opposite parties 1 to 4 resists the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order contending that: The eventual vacancy occurred because of termination of services of Mr.Parida and to that

¶27

Page 3 of 7

¶28

vacancy, petitioner was appointed. The termination of Mr.Parida, having been set at naught by the Apex Court, he has been reinstated in service, petitioner having rightly yielded place to him. He also contends that when vacancy had arisen for some reason, and it is filled up with another, obviously that would be subjected to outcome of the litigation as to the legality of the order, which created such vacancy and it is a case of lis pendens. Therefore, nothing can be done in the matter. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶29

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:-

¶30

5.1. The facts, as narrated above, are not in dispute. Petitioner, having requisite qualification, was selected by the Management of the opposite party-school and thereafter, was appointed with effect from 05.01.2005 vide Annexure-1. Appointment also came to be approved vide order dated 17.04.2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2008 as is reflected in Annexure-4. Mr. Parida, having lost his legal battles both in writ petition and writ appeal, succeeded before the Apex Court and secured an order for his reinstatement. However, all this happened after twenty years of petitioner’s appointment and that too for no fault of his. His case is

¶31

Page 4 of 7

¶32

not of backdoor entry, but one of due selection followed by appointment and approval as well.

¶33

5.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in telling that the District Education Officer, after considering all aspects of the matter, has rightly recommended vide letter dated 23.08.2024 (Annexrue-14) the case of his client for accommodating him in the existing vacancies in any of the three schools, namely, K.C. Pur Panchayat High School, Gabapal, Binapani High School, Darkholi & Panchulingeswar High School. After all, as the policy now stands the 5^th opposite party-aided school is under the direct administration & control of District Education Officer, Balasore, the popular body not being there.

¶34

5.3. The reasoning of the Joint Director that Review Petition is pending before the Apex Court would also not come in the way of accommodating the petitioner in the vacancy in one of the three schools, inasmuch as the said petition filed by the then Management of the School has been dismissed on 19.01.2025. Pendency of the Review Petition was the only ground on which petitioner’s case for appointment elsewhere was not favourably considered. That ground, having withered away, now the opposite parties cannot manufacture other grounds to deny appointment to

¶35

Page 5 of 7

¶36

the petitioner in the light of Apex Court decision in Mohinder Singh Gill V. Chief Election Commission, AIR 1978 SC 851.

¶37

5.4. Ours is a constitutionally ordained Welfare State. Therefore, the action of the State and its instrumentalities should abound elements of fairness, reason & justice. The authorities cannot mindlessly pass orders that would strike at law, at reason & at justice. Human difficulties that are generated for no fault of theirs have to be borne in mind and all reasonable effects be made to mitigate the same, of course, within the frame work of law. Otherwise, the Government, in the sarcastic words of Jermy Bentham, would be what ‘but a band of robbers.’ Statutory authorities should shed Macaulay Mindset and Colonial Hangover while addressing the woes of citizens.

¶38

In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 (Anneure-15) made by the Joint Director, Secondary Education, Odisha coupled with a Writ of Mandamus to appoint the petitioner in terms of Block Grant Scheme within an outer limit of ten (10) weeks in any of the schools enlisted by the District Education Officer, Balasore or any other school of the same category and approve the appointment within a period of three months next following.

¶39

Page 6 of 7

¶40

Director, Secondary Education, Odisha to report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court at the earliest, failing which petitioner may move an appropriate application for penalizing the errant.

¶41

Now, no costs.

¶42

Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶43

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶44

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 16^th day of September, 2025/Basu

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 18-Sep-2025 16:44:41

¶47

Page 7 of 7

Binodini Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binodini Nayak 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akash Chhatar Vs Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi

Subham Sahu Vs Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi

Amiya Kumar Sahu Vs Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi

Ajay Kumar Giri Vs State of Odisha

Giri Gobardhan Forest Committee, Khurda Vs State of Odisha

Arabinda Dash Vs State of Odisha