Allowed¶52

Sanjay Kumar Patra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC22 Apr 2026WP(C)/3871/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka disengagement quashed; parity/equal treatment under Article 14; like cases decided alike; RVWPET No.31 of 2025 (Banita Behera vrs. State of Odisha) judgment dated 17.10.2025 followed; audi alteram partem; non-application of mind; Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj; Rairangpur Education District; 15682 posts; fresh advertisement September 2004; W.P.(C) No.11748 of 2003 Hrushikesh Bindhani; WP(C) No.3871 of 2026; Orissa High Court; decision date 22.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; disengagement Order No.1051 dated 26.03.2018 (Annexure-9) issued by Opposite Party No.3 quashed; petition disposed of finally; interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. ¶52

Sanjay Kumar Patra Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, validly appointed as Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka on 10.02.2004 pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.03.2003, was rightly disengaged by Office Order No.1051 dated 26.03.2018 (Annexure-9) on the ground that he was engaged after 26.09.2003 and was not selected in the selection process pursuant to the second advertisement, such that the disengagement should be quashed. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

The disengagement Order No.1051 dated 26.03.2018 (Annexure-9) issued by the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj (Opposite Party No.3) is quashed, being vitiated for breach of audi alteram partem and non-application of mind, in cohort-distinction terms indicated in para no.24 of the judgment dated 17.10.2025 in RVWPET No.31 of 2025; the writ petition is allowed and disposed of finally, interim orders standing vacated.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

Applying the principles enunciated in the cited decisions, it is held that the petitioner being equal with the petitioner in RVWPET No.31 of 2025 is entitled to get equal treatment/judgment like that petitioner, and there cannot be any discrimination between them; all persons similarly situated/placed should be treated similarly.

¶48

Key takeaways

It is the settled proposition of law that like cases are to be decided alike and a similarly placed applicant/petitioner is entitled to equal treatment from the Court without any discrimination; accordingly the writ petition must be disposed of passing a similar judgment in line with the judgment dated 17.10.2025 in RVWPET No.31 of 2025.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (A.C. Behera, J.; judgment dated 22.04.2026) allowed WP(C) No.3871 of 2026 (Sanjay Kumar Patra v. State of Odisha and others). The petitioner, engaged as a Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka on 10.02.2004 (Order No.209, Annexure-4) pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.03.2003, was disengaged by Office Order No.1051 dated 26.03.2018 (Annexure-9) of the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj on the ground that he was engaged after 26.09.2003 and was not selected in the re-selection held pursuant to this Court's order dated 29.04.2004 in W.P.(C) No.11748 of 2003 (Hrushikesh Bindhani and others vrs. State of Orissa and others), which had directed a fresh advertisement for 15682 posts. Finding the petitioner similarly placed to Banita Behera in RVWPET No.31 of 2025 (judgment dated 17.10.2025), where the same Annexure-9 was quashed, and relying on Article 14 equality precedents (Ardhendu Sekhar Rath and another vrs. State of Odisha and others, 2019(II) OJR-491; Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others vrs. Bachan Singh, 2009(SC)2745; Anupama Mallick vrs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.5813 of 2026), the Court held that like cases must be decided alike and similarly placed petitioners entitled to equal treatment, and quashed the disengagement order as vitiated for breach of audi alteram partem and non-application of mind, in terms of para no.24 of the judgment dated 17.10.2025 in RVWPET No.31 of 2025. Petition allowed and disposed of finally; interim orders vacated.

¶1

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) No.3871 of 2026

¶3

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶4

Sanjay Kumar Patra … Petitioner -VERSUS- State of Odisha represented by Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government, School and Mass Education Department, Bhubaneswar and others

¶5

… Opposite Parties .

¶6

Counsel appeared for the parties:

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. M. K. Mohanty, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, Learned Standing Counsel

¶8

P R E S E N T:

¶9

HONOURABLE

¶10

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

Date of hearing : 22.04.2026 / date of judgment : 22.04.2026

¶13

A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

¶14

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying

¶15

for quashing the impugned Order No.1051 dated 26.03.2018(Annexure-9) passed by the Collector-cum-Chief

¶16

Page 1 of 8.

¶17

Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.3) relating to the disengagement of the petitioner from Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka and to direct the Opposite Parties through issuance of a writ of mandamus for providing all the service and financial benefits accrued in favour of the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders as the Court deems just fit and proper.

¶18

2 . The case of the petitioner is that, an advertisement was made by the Director, Elementary Education Orissa(Opposite Party No.2) on dated 25.03.2003 (Annexure-1) in The daily “Sambad” inviting applications for the post of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka in Government Primary Schools in different Education Districts. In that advertisement, there were 419 posts of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka for Rairangpur Education District to be filled up. The minimum qualification for the said posts was Matric Pass with C.T. and Graduation with B.Ed indicating therein clearly that, untrained Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste candidates are eligible to apply for the said post of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka and the provisions of ORV Act are applicable to them.

¶19

In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioner being an untrained +2 Arts candidate of Scheduled Caste category applied for the same. Thereafter, the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer,

¶20

Page 2 of 8.

¶21

Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.3) vide his Office Letter No.713 dated 27.08.2003 wrote a letter to the Director, Elementary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.2) stating that, the selection process as per advertisement dated 25.03.2003 has not been over and after selection process is over, the select list shall remain valid for one year, as per Resolution dated 03.10.2000 of the Government, for which, he may be permitted/allowed to engage the waiting candidates of the select list. On the basis of that letter dated 27.08.2003 of the Opposite Party No.3, the Government took a decision and communicated the same to all the Collectors of the State through Opposite Party No.1 as per letter dated 29.06.2003 to give engagement to the waiting candidates from the select list.

¶22

3 . So, the petitioner was given appointment as Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka vide Order No.209 dated 10.02.2004(Annexure-4) against one of fifteen(15) Matric C.T./Matric Posts reserved for Scheduled Caste(Women).

¶23

4. The said circular/letter dated 26.09.2003 of the Government of Orissa was quashed by this Court as per order dated 29.04.2004(Annexture-5) passed in W.P.(C) No.11748 of 2003 between Hrushikesh Bindhani and others vrs. State of Orissa and

¶24

others and direction was given to make fresh advertisement for filling up the vacancies of 15682 posts amongst the candidates, who were eligible as on 26.09.2003.

¶25

5. In pursuant to the aforesaid direction made by this Court in Annexure-5 dated 29.04.2004, the Opposite Party No.2 made a fresh advertisement in the month of September, 2004 for filling up of 15682 posts of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka in the State of Orissa including 587 posts for Rairangpur Education District.

¶26

6. As, the petitioner was appointed on dated 10.02.2004 after 26.09.2003, he(petitioner) was asked to apply for the same again as an in-service candidate, but, the petitioner did not participate in that selection process, as he was legally and validly appointed on dated 10.02.2004 as per Annexure-4 in pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.03.2003.

¶27

While, the petitioner was continuing in her service since 10.02.2004, i.e., for last fourteen(14) years, all of a sudden, the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.3) as per Office Order No.1051 dated 26.03.2018(Annexure-9) illegally and arbitrarily disengaged the petitioner from his service on the ground that, he (petitioner) was

¶28

engaged after 26.09.2003 and he was not selected in the next

¶29

Page 4 of 8.

¶30

selection process in pursuant to the 2^nd advertisement, which was made on the basis of the order dated 29.04.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No.11748 of 2003.

¶31

To which, the petitioner challenged by filing this writ petition praying for quashing his said disengagement Order No.1051 dated 26.03.2018 (Annexure-9) issued by the Opposite Party No.3 on the ground that, he was validly selected and appointed by the Opposite Parties, for which, he(petitioner) should not have been disengaged arbitrarily compelling his to appear in the next examination for his selection in the same post along with other grounds.

¶32

7. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶33

8. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed in RVWPET No.31 of 2025 by this Court in a like nature of case of an another Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka candidate of the same Rairangpur Education District like the petitioner between her( Banita Behera vrs. State of Odisha and others) .

¶34

9. It appears from the judgment dated 17.10.2025 between Banita Behera vrs. State of Odisha and others in RVWPET No.31

¶35

Page 5 of 8.

¶36

of 2025 that, the petitioner in this writ petition is similarly placed with the petitioner of the above disposed of RVWPET No.31 of 2025.

¶37

Because, the same Annexure-9, to which, the petitioner has challenged in this writ petition, the same was also under challenge in RVWPET No.31 of 2025 and like the petitioner, the petitioner Banita Behera in RVWPET No.31 of 2025 was serving as Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaka on being appointed like the petitioner and she(Banita Behera) was disengaged by the Opposite Party No.3 in the same Annexure-9, but, that Annexure-9 relating to her disengagement was quashed as per judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed in RVWPET No.31 of 2025.

¶38

10. When, the petitioner in this writ petition is similarly placed with the petitioner in the aforesaid disposed of RVWPET No.31 of 2025, then, as per law, judgment in this writ petition is required to be passed alike with the aforesaid judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed by this Court in the RVWPET No.31 of 2025.

¶39

Because, it is the settled propositions of law that, like cases are to be decided alike and similarly placed applicant/petitioner is entitled to get equal treatment from the Court without any discrimination.

¶40

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been

¶41

clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

¶42

(i) In a case between Ardhendu Sekhar Rath and another vrs. State of Odisha and others : reported in 2019(II) OJR-491 that,

¶43

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 prescribes equality before law, law should be deal alike with all in one class that, there shall be equity of treatment under equal circumstances, which means “that equals should not be treated unlike and unlike should not be treated alike, likes should be treated as alike.”

¶44

(ii) In a case between Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others vrs. Bachan Singh : reported in 2009(SC)2745 that,

¶45

As per Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is that, all persons similarly placed shall be treated alike, both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation without any discrimination.

¶46

(iii) In a case between Anupama Mallick vrs. State of Odisha and others decided in W.P.(C) No.5813 of 2026 at Para No.6 that, like the cases are to be decided alike and similarly placed applicants/petitioners are entitled to get equal treatments from the Court without any discrimination.

¶47

11. So, applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the

¶48

aforesaid decisions to this matter at hand, it is held that, the petitioner in this writ petition being equal with the petitioner in the disposed of RVWPET No.31 of 2025, he (petitioner) is entitled to get equal treatment/judgment like the petitioner in RVWPET No.31 of 2025 and there cannot be any discrimination between them, because, as

¶49

Page 7 of 8.

¶50

per law all persons similarly situated/placed should be treated similarly.

¶51

12. Therefore, there is no other alternative for this Court, but, it is required under law to dispose of this writ petition passing similar judgment in the line of the judgment dated 17.10.2025 of the aforesaid RVWPET No.31 of 2025.

¶52

13. Therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.

¶53

The disengagement Order No.1051 dated 26.03.2018(Annexure-9) issued by the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj(Opposite Party No.3) to the petitioner is quashed being vitiated for breach of audi alteram partem and non-application of mind to the advertisement/cohortdistinction with the other similar conditions indicated in para no.24 of the judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed in the earlier RVWPET No.31 of 2025 by this Court.

¶54

14 . As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of

¶55

finally.

¶56

Interim order, if any, passed earlier in any of the petitions

¶57

stands vacated.

¶58

(A.C. BEHERA) Judge

¶59

Signature Not Verified Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 22^nd of April, 2026/ Jagabandhu, P.A.

¶60

Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 10:35:01

¶61

Page 8 of 8.

Sanjay Kumar Patra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Patra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghunandan Singh Vs Laxmi Tiria, Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar

Lalit Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

Baba Sidheswar Wshg Vs State of Odisha

Suryakanta Giri Vs Himansu Kumar Giri

Punyatoya Chakra Vs Ashish Thakare, I.A.S.

Dambarudhar Bai Vs Madhusmita Pattanaik