Back
2026 Supreme(Ori) 727
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, CHITTARANJAN DASH, JJ.
State Of Odisha & others - Appellants
Versus
Braja Kishore Das – Respondent
W.A No.2289 of 2024
Decided On : 05-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Discrimination and Equality
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Judicial Review - Scope of judicial scrutiny in evaluating administrative decisions - The court found the learned Single Judge did not err in quashing the order denying similar treatment based on substantial and competent evidence proving similarity of circumstances. (Paras 4 and 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner's claim arose from non-appointment despite eligibility and being on the merit list. The same benefits were previously granted to another similar candidate. The petitioner challenged the authority's discriminatory treatment.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the single judge's decision for equal treatment, citing discriminatory actions by the authorities. The university was directed to comply with the judgment within two months.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the petitioner deserved treatment similar to another candidate based on previous tribunal decisions and the reasoning behind this equal treatment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that similarly situated employees must receive equal benefits and that discrimination against them contravenes constitutional principles of equality.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellant : Mr. U.C. Behura, AGA
For the Respondents:M/s. Laxmi Prasad Dwivedy, N. K. Singh, Advocates
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. intra-court appeal overview. (Para 1) |
| 2. appellants argue for non-appointment and procedural errors. (Para 2) |
| 3. respondent's claim parallels others for benefits. (Para 3) |
| 4. single judge's findings on factual similarities. (Para 4) |
| 5. eligibility and procedural mismanagement. (Para 5) |
| 6. no differential treatment among similarly situated employees. (Para 6) |
| 7. constitutional equality principle applies. (Para 7) |
| 8. agreement with single judge's reasoning. (Para 8) |
| 9. appeal dismissed; compliance ordered. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. The present intra-court appeal has been preferred by the Appellants assailing the judgment and order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 25066 of 2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the sole Opposite Party came to be allowed.
2. Mr. U.C. Behura, learned Additional Government Advocate, submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate the scope and import of the earlier proceedings initiated by the Respondent in O.A. No. 2244(C) of 1999. It was contended that the learned Tribunal, by order dated 21.03.2001, had merely directed that in the event any vacancy which had arisen prior to 12.08.1997, earmarked for the General Category (Male), remained available in Jajpur-II Education District, the applicant may be considered for appointment subject to fulfillment of the stipulated conditions. According to him, the said direction was conditional and did not confer any indefeasible right upon the Respondent to claim appointment from an anterior date. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge, while quashing the order of the competent authority rejecting the claim of the Opposite Party, proceeded mechanically and without recording cogent reasons, and directed extension of the benefit granted in favour of Soudamini Nanda in O.A. No. 3096 of 1999, though the factual matrix of that case was distinguishable from that of the present Respondent. On the aforesaid premises, learned counsel urged that the impugned judgment warrants interference and is liable to be set aside.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the sole Respondent, refuted the submissions advanced on behalf of the Appellants and contended that the Opposite Party stands on an identical footing with Soudamini Nanda. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge, upon due consideration of the materials on record and the earlier directions of the Tribunal, rightly concluded that the claim of the Opposite Party could not be distinguished from that of the said Soudamini Nanda. According to him, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, requiring the Appellants to extend to the Opposite Party the same benefit as had been extended in favour of Soudamini Nanda in O.A. No. 3096 of 1999, is legally sound and does not warrant interference in the present intra-court appeal.
4. The learned Single Judge, upon an examination of the record and the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2244(C) of 1999, held that the Tribunal had categorically observed that the claim of the writ petitioner stood on the same footing as that of Soudamini Nanda and had directed consideration of his case accordingly. Noticing that, notwithstanding such finding, the competent authority rejected the claim by treating the petitioner as dissimilarly situated, the learned Single Judge found the impugned administrative order unsustainable in law. Consequently, the order dated 05.08.2022 was quashed and a direction was issued to extend to the petitioner the same benefit as had been granted in favour of Soudamini Nanda, within the stipulated time, as follows:
“Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that the Tribunal while deciding the claim of the Petitioner with regard to antedate his appointment to 17.11.1998 clearly held that the claim of the petitioner's stand on the similar footing as that of Saudamini Nanda.
