Muralidhar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶17

By filing the present writ application the Petitioner has prayed for the following relief.

¶18

“In view of the facts stated above and the grounds, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the Opp.parties to appoint the petitioner as Shikshya Sahayak against the unfilled vacancies in terms of judgment dt.19.12.2025 by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.32208/2023 and batch under Annexure4;

¶19

Page 1 of 4.

¶20

And pass such other writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity;

¶21

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

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to appoint him as a Shikshya Sahayak against unfilled vacancies in the post of Shikshya Sahayak in terms of the judgment of this Court in Dhaneswar Das and others vs. State of Odisha and others , bearing W.P.(C) No.32208 of 2023 and a batch of similar other matters, which were disposed of vide a common judgment dated 19.12.2025.

¶23

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture conducted that no writ appeal have been preferred an appeal the judgment dated 19.12.2025 Dhaneswar Das’s case (supra) has attained finality. He further contended that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the abovenoted case. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite Parties be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner along with as per the decision taken in the case of Dhaneswar Das and others , who were the Petitioners in the above noted writ petitions disposed of vide judgment dated 19.12.2025.

¶24

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter. However, on a close analysis of the pleadings in the writ application it appears that the Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider his candidature against the unfulfilled vacancies to the post of Shikshya Sahayak. He further submitted that

¶25

Page 2 of 4.

¶26

no such direction ought to be passed at this stage since it is likely to cause prejudice to other similarly situated candidates, some of whom may have a better claim than the present Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party also objected the present writ petition on the ground that the Petitioner has not approached the Opposite Party first for redressal of such grievance before approaching this Court. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that in the event this Court directs grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.3 i.e. State Project Director, Odisha, Samagra Sikshya Programme Authority to consider the case of the Petitioner in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time, he will have no objection to the same.

¶27

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective Parties, on a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case, further taking note of limited nature of the grievance involved in the present writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.3 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with the copies of the judgments relied upon in support of Petitioner’s claim, within two weeks’ from today. In such eventuality, Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to consider such representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law and in terms of the ratio laid down by this Court in Dhaneswar Das’s case (supra), a copy of the judgment of which is attached to the writ application as Annexure-4, and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within eight weeks’ from the date the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.3. The final decision so taken be communicated

¶28

Page 3 of 4.

¶29

to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. This Court further makes it clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶30

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶31

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge

¶32

Sisir

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 10-Mar-2026 19:18:07

¶35

Page 4 of 4.

Muralidhar Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muralidhar Behera 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premalata Panda Vs Usha Padhee, Principal Secretary Housing and Urban Development Deptt.

Adwait Prasad Sahoo Vs Surendra Pati

Umarani Sahoo Vs Surendra Pati

Sudhir Kumar Das Vs Madhusudan Das

Santanu Kumar Nayak Vs Leela Sahoo

Manoj Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha