This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging the illegal selection of a Grievance Helper. The High Court held that the petition involved a disputed question of fact regarding the application submission date and ruled that such facts cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
Writ petition dismissed on contest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18646 of 2017
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Lizarani Samantaray …. Petitioner
-versus-
…. Collector, Ganjam and Others Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. Rabindra Kumar Patnaik, Advocate. For Opposite Parties - Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :16.01.2026 :: Date of Judgment :22.01.2026
A.C. Behera, J . This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the Collector, Ganjam (O.P. No.1) to conduct an enquiry into
the grievances of the petitioner as per Annexure-5 and to pass an appropriate order after giving personal hearing to the petitioner and others regarding the selection of “Jogana Sahayak” of Genja G.P.
made by the O.P. No.3 (Block Development Officer, Surada Block in the
Page 1 of 7
district of Ganjam), the petitioner along with others of Genja G.P. applied for “Jogana Sahayak” of Genja G.P. As per the Advt. (Annexure-1), the last date of submission of Application Form before the B.D.O., Surada Block (O.P. No.3) was 05.02.2016 and accordingly, the petitioner submitted her Application Form before the Office of O.P. No.3 (B.D.O., Surada Block) on 05.02.2016. An acknowledgment receipt vide Annexure-2 was issued in favour of the petitioner by the O.P. No.3 on dated 05.02.2016 regarding the submission of Application Form by the petitioner.
Thereafter, the O.P. No.3 (B.D.O., Surada Block) sat over the matter for eight months, but suddenly sent a panel list of the selected Jogana Sahayak of different G.Ps including Genja G.P. of Surada Block to the O.P. No.2 (Sub-Collector, Bhanjanagar) on dated 07.10.2016. The O.P. No.2 approved the said selected panel list of Jogana Sahayak of all G.Ps of Surada Block including Genja G.P. on dated 22.10.2016 without displaying the said panel list in the notice board.
When, the petitioner came to know that, the O.P. No.4 has been selected illegally as Jogana Sahayak of Genja G.P., then she (petitioner) applied on dated 05.11.2016 under the R.T.I. Act for supplying information in respect of the selection list of Jogana Sahayak of Genja G.P., then the O.P. No.3 did not supply the said information in time. For which, she (petitioner) preferred an appeal vide F.A. No.2 of 2017. Then,
Page 2 of 7
the Authority supplied information to her. After verification of panel list, it was found that, in total 5 candidates for post of Jogana Sahayak of
Genja G.P. had applied and in Remarks Category, it was stated that, the petitioner had submitted an application for Jogana Sahayak, which was received on dated 06.02.2016 after completion of the cutoff date for receiving the same.
As the petitioner had submitted her application in due time i.e. on 05.02.2016 and she had secured highest marks among the other candidates, those had applied for the same, but only in order to accommodate the O.P. No.4, the O.P. No.3 had manipulated the date of receipt of her application as 06.02.2016 instead of 05.02.2016. Therefore, she (petitioner) submitted a detailed representation before the O.P. No.1 ventilating her aforesaid grievances and the O.P. No.1 directed O.P. No.3 to conduct an enquiry about the same. Thereafter, on dated 13.04.2017, the O.P. No.3 submitted a report to the O.P. No.1 stating that, the cutoff date of submission of the application was 05.02.2016, but she (petitioner) had submitted her application on 06.02.2016. For which, her application was not taken for consideration into the selection process. The aforesaid enquiry report of the O.P. No.3 is neither legal nor correct. Because, she (petitioner) had submitted her Application Form in due time on 05.02.2016, for which, she should have
Page 3 of 7
been selected as “Jogana Sahayak” of Genja G.P., but illegally, she has not been taken into the zone of selection process.
Therefore, she (petitioner) filed this writ petition against the O.Ps praying for directing the O.P. No.1 (Collector, Ganjam) to conduct an enquiry into her grievances as per Annexure-5 and to pass an appropriate order after giving personal hearing to the petitioner and others in respect of the selection of Jogana Sahayak of Genja G.P., as O.P. No.3 illegally selected O.P. No.4 as Jogana Sahayak of Genja G.P.
4 . The O.P. No.3 has submitted its counter denying the allegations alleged by the petitioner in her petition stating that, the petitioner had submitted her application on 06.02.2016, as evident from the office register in Sl. No.3 as per Annexure-B/3 with the acknowledgment of the Receiving Officer of the Office of the O.P. No.3 and if required, the original of Annexure-B/3 can be submitted before this Court. As such, the application of the petitioner was not submitted before the cutoff date. Therefore, application of the petitioner was not taken into the zone of selection process. The O.P. No.4 was lawfully selected. For which, the selection of O.P. No.4 as Jogana Sahayak of Genja G.P. is neither improper nor illegal and the said selected panel list of Jogana Sahayak of Genja G.P. of all the G.Ps of Surada Blocks including Genja G.P. was approved by the Sub-Collector, Bhanjnagar (O.P. No.2) as per AnnexureC/3.
Page 4 of 7
Therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is not entertainable under law. The same is liable to be dismissed.
5 . It is very fundamental in law that, any Application Form cannot be
accepted after the expiry of the cutoff date according to the Advertisement.
Here in this writ petition, the petitioner is relying upon the copy of an Acknowledgment Receipt vide Annexure-2 showing about the submission of her application on dated 05.02.2016, to which, the O.P. No.3 is contradicting/denying in its counter supported with an affidavit relying upon Annexure-B/3 that, the application of the petitioner for Jogana Sahayak was submitted on dated 06.02.2016 i.e. after cutoff date. Because, the cutoff date for applying was up to 05.02.2016.
6 . As per the rival submissions, contentions as well as the aforesaid counter documents vide Annexure-2 and Annexure-B/3 against each other, the date of submission of the application for “Jogana Sahayak” is a disputed question of fact.
7 . As per law, a disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. Because, for ascertaining the real truth about the disputed the question of facts like this matter at hand, adduction of evidence is required.
Page 5 of 7
For which, the writ petition filed by the petitioner basing upon the disputed question of fact for the reasons assigned above is not entertainable under law.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Sri Nilakantha Rath Vrs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors. reported in 108 (2009) CLT 638 that, disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. (Para 12)
(ii) In a case between Jay Maa Construction through Proprietor Radhe Lal Sahu Vrs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. passed in W.P.(C) No.3016 of 2025 (decided on 19.06.2025) (at Para 15) that,
When there are disputed question of facts involved in a case, the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8 . When, the date of submission of the application i.e. whether before
or after the cutoff date is under dispute in this writ petition on the basis of the counter documents against each other as per the discussions made above and when as per the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions to this matter at hand, it is held that, this writ petition filed by the petitioner on the disputed question of fact is not entertainable under law.
Page 6 of 7
9 . Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be
dismissed.
10 . In result, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed on contest, but without cost.
11 . As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.
(A.C. Behera), Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 22.01.2026//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Jan-2026 17:10:26
Page 7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition is maintainable when it involves a disputed question of fact regarding the date of submission of an application form.
Whether the High Court can adjudicate on conflicting documentary evidence without evidence adduction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sri Nilakantha Rath Vrs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors.Explained¶39
108 (2009) CLT 638
Jay Maa Construction through Proprietor Radhe Lal Sahu Vrs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.Explained¶40
W.P.(C) No.3016 of 2025
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lizarani Samantaray
Collector, Ganjam
Block Development Officer, Surada
A.C. Behera
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
