Disposed

Dr.Sunil Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Sept 2026WP(C)/28371/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dr. Sunil Sahu filed a writ petition seeking quashing of notices and direction to continue in post as an Assistant Professor due to alleged discrimination. The Court directed the respondents to decide on an application for parity and dismissed the writ petition thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite party no.3 to decide on application for parity within two weeks; no coercive action during this period; Writ Petition disposed.

Dr.Sunil Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.28371 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010680312026

¶2

Dr. Sunil Sahu Petitioner

¶3

Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate

¶4

State of Odisha & Ors. Opposite Parties

¶5

Mr. A. Tripathy, ASC

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶7

ORDER

¶8

Order No. 10.09.2026

¶9

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

¶10

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶11

3 . The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: -

¶12

“Under these facts and circumstances, it is most humbly prayed therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash notice no. 235/Director, VIMSAR, Burla, dated 19.05.2026at annexure-6 and subsequent letter no. 427 dated 25.08.2026 at annexure-9 issued by 0pp. party no-3, so far it relates to the petitioner who is continuing in the post of Assistant professor in the department of General Surgery, VIMSAR, Burla.

¶13

And further be pleased to direct 0pp. party no. 3 and 4 to allow the petitioner to continue in post of Assistant professor in the department of General Surgery, VIMSAR, Burla till the same is filled up on regular basis and as the benefits has been extended to similarly placed doctors vide order no. 301 dated 19.06.2026 under annexure-8.

¶14

Or in the alternative pass any other order/orders as deem fit and proper in this case.

¶15

And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

4. It is contended that on the face of the impugned notice though similarly situated doctors have been allowed to continue in the establishment of Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4, but Petitioner has been discriminated.

¶18

5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand contended that if similarly situated doctors on the face of the impugned notice have been allowed to continue, Petitioner can very well make his grievance before Opposite Party No.3.

¶19

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is observed that if any such application will be moved claiming parity before Opposite Party No.3 within a period of seven (7) days from the date of receipt of this order, Opposite Party No.3 shall take a lawful decision on the same within a period of two (2) weeks. Till a decision is taken, no coercive action be taken against the Petitioner.

¶20

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶21

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶22

Nitu Prava

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Page 2 of 2

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: NITU PRAVA PRUSTY Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2026 16:13:09

Dr.Sunil Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Sunil Sahu 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