IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.1825 OF 2024 In the matter of an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court read with Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 and Chapter-III, Rule 6 of Orissa High Court Rules, 1948 from order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.

19120 of 2018 & WP(C) No.12813 of 2016.

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

1. State of Odisha, represented through its Principal Secretary to Govt., School & Mass Education Deptt., Bhubaneswar, Khurda

2. State Project Director, OPEPA, Bhubaneswar, Khurda

3. Director Elementary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, Khurda

4. Collector, Kendrapara-cum-

Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kendrapara

5. District Project Coordinat, Sarba Sikshya Abhiyan, …. Appellants Kendrapara -versus-

Debendra Nath Malik, Kendrapara …. Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case For Appellants - Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA For Respondent - M/s. D.N. Rath, A.K. Saa & S. Das, Advocates ----------- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing & Judgment : 25.02.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT,J This Intra-Court Appeal by the State & its functionaries seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 10.11.2023, whereby Respondent’s WP(C) No.19120 of 2018 & WP(C) No.12813 of 2016 having been favoured the disengagement order dated 27.10.2018 has been quashed coupled with a direction to the Appellants to reinstate the Respondent into the post with all consequential service & financial benefits.

2. Learned AGA in his usual vehemence seeks invalidation of the impugned order essentially on the grounds that: The very initial engagement of the Respondent was on the basis of the process that was initiated by the recruitment advertisement dated 25.03.2003, and that the same has been quashed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.11748 of 2003 between Hrushikesh Bindhani v. State of Odisha disposed off on 29.04.2004; secondly, even after selection the candidature of Respondent had fallen beyond the cut off line. According to him, these aspects having not been properly considered, the impugned order has apparent infirmities warranting interference of this Court for setting the same at right. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent-employee resists the Appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which the same has been structured. He submits that the Respondent was put to perennial agony, inasmuch as he was driven to this Court on multiple occasions, though in every case he emerged victorious and therefore, exemplary cost should be awarded to him.

3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

3.1. AS TO AGONY OF RESP WHO BELONGS TO SCHEDULED CASTE:

3.1.1. Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) in a letter addressed to C. F. Andrews in 1921 that the 'idea of India' itself militates 'against the intense consciousness of the separateness of one's own people from others'. Untouchability & casteism were two monsters that afflicted our society for centuries, if not millennia. South of the country heralded a new epoch of equality & egalitarianism. From time to time several great persons have campaigned for the eradication of these maladies that had put a large chunk of people to enormous social disadvantage and suffering. Then came the Great Ambedkar with a book in hand ‘Annihilation of Caste’. Under his leadership, a progressive Constitution came to be enacted inter alia providing for abolition of untouchability, and reservation by affirmative action in favour of oppressed communities.

3.1.2. Several policies of affirmative action came to be formulated for the upliftment downtr