Disposed¶29

Srandhanjali Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC21 May 2026WP(C)/15979/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, WP(C) No.15979 of 2026, decided 21.05.2026 by Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra. Petitioner Srandhanjali Sahoo sought mandamus for approval of her post per Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2011 (Annexure-9) against State of Odisha & Ors.; Director, Higher Education, Odisha (O.P. No.2) directed to consider fresh representation within eight weeks by speaking and reasoned order; decision to be communicated within ten days; writ petition disposed of with liberty; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh representation before the Director, Higher Education, Odisha (Opposite Party No.2) within two weeks; the representation, if filed in time, to be considered and disposed of within eight weeks by a speaking and reasoned order, with the decision communicated to the petitioner within ten days thereafter.

Srandhanjali Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether Opposite Party No.2 is obliged to approve the post held by the petitioner, she being entitled to appointment and approval as per the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2011 (Annexure-9), and to consider the college authority's request for approval within a particular time.

¶19

Court's answer

In view of the limited nature of the grievance, the Court disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Director, Higher Education, Odisha (Opposite Party No.2) ventilating his grievance within two weeks.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

If such a representation is filed within the stipulated time, Opposite Party No.2 shall consider and dispose of it within eight weeks from the date of filing by passing a speaking and reasoned order.

¶25

Key takeaways

The decision so taken on the representation shall be communicated to the petitioner within ten days thereafter.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WP(C) No.15979 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J.) seeking a Rule NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus for approval of the post held by the petitioner in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2011 (Annexure-9) and consideration of the college authority's request for approval. Disposed of on the limited grievance: liberty granted to file a fresh representation before the Director, Higher Education, Odisha (Opposite Party No.2) within two weeks; if so filed, Opposite Party No.2 to consider and dispose of it within eight weeks by a speaking and reasoned order and communicate the decision to the petitioner within ten days thereafter.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.15979 of 2026

¶2

Srandhanjali Sahoo

¶3

.....

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Represented by Adv. - Gyaneswar Satpathy

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶8

..... Opposite Parties

¶9

Represented by Adv. - Mr. C.M.Singh, A.S.C.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

01.

21.05.2026

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto.

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶19

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a Rule NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus and/or any other writ and/or writs, direction and/or directions, order and/or orders calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the post held by the petitioner will not be approved by O.P. No.2 within a particular time as she is entitled for appointment & approval as per the Office memorandum dated 10.08.2011 vide annexure-9 &/or request for the approval of the post made by the college authority will not be ventilated within a

¶20

Page 1 of 3.

¶21

particular time if the opp. parties failed to show cause &/or show insufficient and false cause make the said Rule Nisi absolute ;

¶22

And/or pass any other appropriate order as appear just and proper in the fitness of the case.”

¶23

In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner may be granted liberty to file a fresh representation ventilating his grievance before the Director, Higher Education, Odisha, Heads of Department Building, Bhubaneswar, Opposite Party No.2 which may be considered within a stipulated period of time in accordance with law.

¶24

Learned Additional Standing counsel on the other hand submits that he has no objection if liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Opposite Party No.2 and the same is considered and disposed of in accordance with law.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid limited nature of grievance of the petitioner, this Court disposes of the writ petition granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Director, Higher Education, Odisha, Heads of Department Building, Bhubaneswar, Opposite Party No.2 ventilating his grievance within a period of two weeks. If such a representation is filed within the time stipulated, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the Opposite Party No.2 within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing representation by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision so taken on the same shall be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days

Page 2 of 3.

Rubi

thereafter.