Amulya Kumar Biswal Vs State of Odisha

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.676 of 2026

¶2

Amulya Kumar Biswal .....

¶3

Petitioner

¶4

Represented by Adv. - Dr. Jitendra Kumar Lenka

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1) State Of Odisha

¶7

1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) State Of Odisha Represented by Adv. – 3) Director Higher Education, Odisha Mr. D.K. Sahu, AGA 4) Director Higher Secondary Education, Odisha 5) Sub-collector, Anandapur-cumpresident Governing Body Patitapaban Higher Secondary School, Sainkul

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

12.01.2026

Order No.

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

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶15

The present application has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer.

¶16

“The Petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that Your Lordship would be graciously pleased to issue rule Nisi calling upon the 0pp. Parties to show cause as to why the impugned transfer order dated 05/01/2026 at SI. No.4 at Annexure-7 so far as it

¶17

Page 1 of 5.

¶18

relates to the petitioner should not be quashed and as to why the 0pp. Parties should not be directed to allow the petitioner to continue at Patitapaban Higher Secondary School, Sainkul, At/P.O- Sainkul, P.S.Ramachandrapur, Dist.- Keonjhar till his superannuation on 30.06.2026.

¶19

And issue any other writ/writs or direction/directions as would be necessary in the interest of justice;

¶20

And if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or sufficient cause, the rule be made absolute.

¶21

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

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the present Petitioner initially joined the institution as a Lecturer in Economics on 25.09.1991. Since his initially appointment the Petitioner has been discharged his duties as a lecturer to the satisfaction of the authorities. He further submitted that in the meantime, on attaining the age of superannuation the Petitioner is due to retire on 30.06.2026. Intimation in this regard has been given to the Director, Higher Education Odisha, Bhubaneswar by the principal of Patitapaban Higher Secondary School on 23.07.2025 at Annexure-2. The aforesaid letter was written on the context that the Petitioner was working in a pensionable establishment and he is going to retire with the next 24 months.

¶23

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner happens to be the senior most Reader in Economics at the Patitapaban Higher Secondary School, Keonjhar. He further submitted that on the basis of recommendation of the Sub-

¶24

Page 2 of 5.

¶25

Collector, Anandpur from President of the Governing Body of the abovenoted school, the Petitioner was appointed as Principal-inCharge -cum-Secretary, Governing body of the Higher Secondary School until further orders, vide order dated 08.11.2023, at Annxure-4.

¶26

In the present writ application the Petitioner has challenged the order of transfer of the Petitioner vide letter dated 05.01.2026 at Annexure-7. On perusal of the impugned order it appears that the same has been issued by the department of Higher Education thereby transferring several lecturers, including the present Petitioner. So far the present Petitioner is concerned, his name appears at Sl. No.4 and he has been transferred from Keonjhar to Balasore i.e. Dr. Harekrushna Mahtab Degree College, Kupari, Balasore with immediate effect. A further scrutiny of the order dated 05.01.2026 reveals that the transfer is routine in nature, i.e. no administrative ground has been taken in passing such transfer order. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that the Petitioner has barely six months of service left and he has been transferred at the fag-end of his career, which is contrary to the guidelines of the Government. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the Government is unsustainable in the eye of law and accordingly, the same should be quashed.

¶27

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that the office order transferring the teaching faculties, including the present Petitioner, at Annexure-7 is a routine transfer order and has been passed by the Government to regulate the non-government aided colleges including the college of the Petitioner. He further submitted that transfer is an incident

¶28

Page 3 of 5.

¶29

of service. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot raise any objection to such order which is a part of service condition. In course of his argument, learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that in the event the Petitioner has any grievance he should have approached the competent authority for redressal of such grievance. However, the Petitioner has directly to approached this court by filing the present Writ Application. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the application filed by the Petitioner is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed.

¶30

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts and further in a careful scrutiny of the office order dated 05.01.2026 at Annexure-7, this court observed that the Petitioner’s name finds place in the impugned order at Sl. No.4 and he has been transferred from Patitapaban Higher Secondary School, Keonjhar to Dr. Harekrushna Mahtab (Degree College), Kupari, Balasore. The Writ Petition further reveals that the Petitioner is due to retire on 30.06.2026. Therefore, it is also not disputed that the Petitioner has one year’s service left. Moreover, the impugned office order dated 05.01.2026 does not reveal that the same has been passed on any administrative ground. As such this Court has every reason to come to a conclusion that the impugned order is routine in nature. Considering the guidelines of the Government with regard to transfer of the government employees, this court is of the view that, the Petitioner should not have been disturbed at the fag-end of his career. Unless it is absolutely necessary. In view of the aforesaid position, further taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner has not

¶31

Page 4 of 5.

¶32

approached the competent authority first for redressal of his grievance, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition, at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to file the representation before the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Government of Odisha-Opposite Party No.1 within ten days from today taking therein all the grounds and all supporting documents. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall consider the representation of the Petitioner strictly in terms of the government guidelines applicable to the government employees and dispose of the representation by passing a reasoned order within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. As an interim, it is directed that the impugned order at Annexure-7, so far as it relates to the present Petitioner whose name appears at serial no.4, shall not be given effect to for a period of six weeks.

¶33

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶34

Opposite Parties are directed to downloaded copy of the order duly authenticated by the Petitioner.

¶35

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application in course of the day.

¶36

( A.K. Mohapatra )

¶37

Judge

¶38

Signature Not VerifiedSisir

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 12-Jan-2026 18:13:01

¶40

Page 5 of 5.

Amulya Kumar Biswal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amulya Kumar Biswal 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lokanatha Kanhar Vs State of Odisha

Ranjit Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Karna Vs State of Odisha

Kamal Kumar Jena Vs Gouranga Swain

Amita Dalai Vs Ramesh Naik

Bibhuti Bhusan Naik Vs State of Odisha