Quashed

Sakuntala Hans v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Sept 2026WP(C)/12197/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a batch of 60+ writ petitions challenging a departmental resolution dated 28.01.2026 that proposed renaming a post from PHEO to PHCO, this Single Judge Bench, relying on the State's admission that the change precipitates future direct recruitment rules, quashed the resolution before any rule amendment was made and disposed of the petitions.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned resolution dated 28.01.2026 and disposal of the connected writ petitions.

Sakuntala Hans Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos. 4608, 4747, 4753, 4839, 4950, 5400 , 5483, 5747, 6121, 6314, 6331, 6504, 6506, 6509, 6511 , 6517,6518, 6522, 6535, 6542, 6543, 6544, 6548, 6552, 6753, 7531, 7533, 7535, 7536, 7545, 7557, 7559, 8177, 8188 , 8189, 8200, 8207 , 8211, 8212, 8214, 8217, 8436, 8468, 8476, 11414, 11524, 11529,11534, 11598 , 11624, 11629, 11658,11983, 12197, 12201, 12202, 12268, 12274, 12312, 12333, 12337, 13038, 13819, 13872 & 23461 of 2026

¶2

CNR Nos. ODHC010095752026, ODHC010099382026 , ODHC010099412026, ODHC010105042026, ODHC010106252026, ODHC010120022026, ODHC010120162026, ODHC010120052026, ODHC010140852026, ODHC010131322026, ODHC010131382026, ODHC010142722026 , ODHC010142662026,ODHC010142422026, ODHC010142802026, ODHC010142582026, ODHC010142532026, ODHC010142832026, ODHC010142632026, ODHC010142292026, ODHC010142142026, ODHC010142312026, ODHC010142192026, OHC010142262026, ODHC010147012026, ODHC010167172026, ODHC010167222026, ODHC010167402026, ODHC010167492026, ODHC010167532026, ODHC010167582026, ODHC010167652026, ODHC010167132026, ODHC010185352026, ODHC010185412026, ODHC010185262026, ODHC010185472026, ODHC010185682026 ODHC010185572026, ODHC010185982026, ODHC010189102026, ODHC010189152026, ODHC010185502026, ODHC010188662026, ODHC010189202026, ODHC010239572026, ODHC010259782026 ODHC010259822026, ODHC010259852026, ODHC010260642026 ODHC010260562026, ODHC010260572026, ODHC010260602026 , ODHC010262582026, ODHC010262922026, ODHC010262992026 ODHC010263022026, ODHC010262822026, ODHC010262712026, ODHC010260632026, ODHC010262662026, ODHC010262692026, ODHC010263082026, ODHC010262612026 & ODHC010262572026

¶3

WP(C) No. 4608 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010095752026

¶4

Lili Sutar

¶5

..... Petitioner Mr. S.K. Gartia, Advocate

¶6

-versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC

¶7

Page 1 of 4.

¶8

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶9

10.09.2026

¶10

Order No. 01

¶11

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties in the present batch of writ petitions and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶13

All these writ petitions have been filed inter alia challenging the impugned resolution issued by the Department-Opp. Party No. 1 on 28.01.2026.

¶14

Bereft of the grounds of challenge to the impugned resolution, learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners contended that since as admitted in Para 7 of the counter affidavit so filed by the StateOpp. Parties in W.P.(C) No. 4608 of 2026, such a resolution has been issued in anticipation of an amendment to be carried out in future to Odisha Health (Extension and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013, post of PHEO could not have been re-designated as PHCO, with appointment to the post of PHCO only by way of direct recruitment. It is accordingly contended that Resolution dt.28.01.2026 is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set-aside.

¶15

Stand taken in Para 7 of the counter affidavit so filed in W.P.(C) No. 4608 of 2026 and adopted in the connected cases, reads as follows:-

¶16

Page 2 of 4.

¶17

“That, the impugned resolution dtd. 28.01.2026 (Annexure11) has been passed to bring about a future amendment in the Odisha Health Extension and Communication Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 to change the post of PHEO to Public Health Communication Officer (PHCO). When the said amendment comes into force, PHCOs would be appointed through Direct Recruitment. The proposed amendment is policy decision of Government which is being given effect to bring factual change in public health seeking behavior, improve community health practices, provide better scope for universal health coverage and similar greater public benefits. It is humbly submitted that quashing the said resolution would be detrimental to the greater public good.”

¶18

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submission made and in view of the admission made in Para 7 of the counter affidavit that such change of the designation of the post of PHEO to PHCO with a further stipulation that post of PHCO will not be filled-up only by way of direct recruitment, it is the view of this court that prior to carrying out the amendment to the 2013 Rules, no such resolution could have been issued. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned resolution dtd.28.01.2026, so impugned in the present batch of writ petitions and quash the same accordingly.

¶19

6.1. In view of the quashing of the impugned resolution, it is open for the Opp. Parties to proceed with the selection process, if any initiated pursuant to letter dtd.06.01.2025.

¶20

Page 3 of 4.

¶21

All the batch of writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶22

Photo copy of the order be placed in the connected case

¶23

records.

¶24

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶25

Sneha

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 12-Sep-2026 12:55:29

¶28

Page 4 of 4.

Sakuntala Hans v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakuntala Hans v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases