Disposed¶26

Maria Muthamajhi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC6 May 2026WP(C)/2499/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganwadi Worker disengagement; Sub-Collector, Baliguda; Parampanga Anganwadi Centre; Parampanga Grampanchayat; principles of natural justice; audi alteram partem; no opportunity of hearing before disengagement; writ petition disposed of owing to efficacious alternative appellate remedy; writ jurisdiction maintainability; disputed questions of facts before appellate authority; expeditious decision of appeal; State of Odisha; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra; order dated 06.05.2026; impugned order dated 18.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Since an alternative remedy is provided under law, the petitioner shall resort to that remedy instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. ¶23

Maria Muthamajhi Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's disengagement from the post of Anganwadi Worker violated the principles of natural justice by not affording her an opportunity of hearing before the disengagement order. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

It is open to the petitioner to raise all points, including the alleged non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, before the appellate authority.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Since an alternative remedy is provided under law, the petitioner shall resort to that remedy instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶23

Key takeaways

Once the appeal is filed, the appellate authority is expected to decide it as expeditiously as possible.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.2499 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, order dated 06.05.2026 - Maria Muthamajhi v. State of Odisha and others: The petitioner, disengaged by the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Sub-Collector, Baliguda (opposite party No.3) from the post of Anganwadi Worker at Parampanga Anganwadi Centre under Parampanga Grampanchayat, Baliguda, challenged the disengagement solely on the ground of alleged noncompliance with the principles of natural justice, contending that the failure to afford an opportunity of hearing breached the cardinal principle of audi alteram partem. The State submitted that an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal was available under law and that disputed questions of fact should be raised before the appellate authority. Regard being had to the submissions, the Court found that since an alternative remedy is provided under law the petitioner shall resort to it instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction; it disposed of the writ petition, leaving the petitioner free to raise all points, including the alleged breach of the principles of natural justice, before the appellate authority, and expressing the expectation that the appellate authority would decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. No relief was granted within the writ jurisdiction.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.2499 of 2026

¶3

Maria Muthamajhi

¶4

…. Petitioner(s)

¶5

Mr. Chandrakanta Nayak, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and …. Opposite Party(s) others

¶8

Mr. Debraj Mohanty, AGA

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Order

No.

01.

1. Heard.

ORDER

06.05.2026

2. The petitioner, by invoking the writ jurisdiction

¶17

of this Court, has assailed the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Sub-Collector, Baliguda-opposite party No.3 disengaging her from the post of Anganwadi Worker in Parampanga Anganwadi Centre under Parampanga Grampanchayat, Baliguda. The sole ground of challenge is only confined to the alleged noncompliance of principles of natural justice.

¶18

3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner by

¶19

pointing out the guidelines submits that non-affording

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the order of disengagement is directly in violation of the cardinal principle of audi alteram partem . Hence, he seeks indulgence of the writ Court.

¶22

4. On the contrary, Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that since there is an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal is provided under the law, no writ is maintainable. He further submits that whether in the case in hand the principles of natural justice has been followed or not, involves disputed questions of facts, which could be appropriately agitated before the appellate authority instead of in the writ proceeding.

¶23

5. Regard being had to the submissions of both the parties, this Court is of the considered view that since an alternative remedy is provided under law, the petitioner shall resort to the said remedy instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is open for the petitioner to raise all the points including the point of non-compliance of principles of natural justice before the appellate authority. It is expected that once

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

the appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall do well to see that the same is decided as expeditiously as possible.

¶26

6. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶27

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶28

Swarna

¶29

Signature Not Verified