IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.1898 of 2025

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950.

----

Binodini Nayak …. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties

Advocates Appeared in this case

For Petitioner - Dr. Jitendra Kumar Lenka

B.Mohapatra & A.K. Sahoo

(Advocates)

For Opp. Parties - Mr.J.K. Ray,

ASC for O.Ps1 to 4

---

CORAM

MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing & Judgment : 16.09.2025

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J

One Ramesh Chandra Parida was appointed as a Hindi

Teacher vide order dated 14.12.1991. However, for remaining unauthorized absence, his services came to be terminated on 27.02.2004. To that vacancy, petitioner came to be appointed after selection vide order dated 05.01.2005 (Annexure-1). Her

appointment was approved on 17.04.2012 with effect from 01.04.2008 vide Annexure-3. Mr. Parida challenged his termination in W.P.(C) No.7512 of 2012, which was dismissed on 19.07.2018. His Writ Appeal No.434 of 2008 also met the same fate on 08.03.2019. He carried the matter in C.A. No.4632 of 2024, which ultimately came to be allowed by the Apex Court vide order dated 02.04.2024 with a specific direction for reinstatement in service. As a consequence, he has been reinstated too.

2. As a fallout of reinstatement, the petitioner, who had put in more than twenty years of spotless service, was rendered jobless. He had requested the jurisdictional opposite parties to accommodate him in any of the vacancies in any aided schools. The District Education Officer, Balaosre mercifully made a recommendation to the Director, Secondary Education, vide letter dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure-14) that the petitioner may be accommodated in a post in one of the three schools enlisted in the said letter. However, the Joint Director of Secondary Education, Odisha vide order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure-15) negatived the request of the petitioner in gross disregard of the recommendation of the District Education Officer saying that the Review Petition vide Diary No.23085 of 2024 filed by the School Management was pending before the Apex Court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is airing his grievance in writ jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that his client, having been appointed after due selection more than twenty years ago, and her appointment, having been approved by the jurisdictional authority on 17.04.2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2008. It is only by the conspiracy of circumstances that she has lost her job having put in such a long & spotless service as a teacher and therefore, the action of the answering opposite parties lacks reason and justice in denying a post despite recommendation by the District Education Officer. He also stresses the fact that the District Education Officer, Balasore, in his recommendation, has also enlisted three Aided Schools of same category wherein posts of the kind are left unfilled. He also points out that the order of appointment was not made subject to outcome of the litigation, which Mr.Parida would undertake, if any, and therefore, it cannot be treated as a pure case of appointment lis pendens.

4. Learned ASC appearing for the opposite parties 1 to 4 resists the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order contending that: The eventual vacancy occurred because of termination of services of Mr.Parida and to that vacancy, petitioner was appointed. The termination of Mr.Parida, having been set at naught by the Apex Court, he has been reinstated in service, petitioner having rightly yielded place to him. He also contends that when vacancy had arisen for some reason, and it is filled up with another, obviously that would be subjected to outcome of the litigation as to the legality of the order, which