IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) NOs.36017,36023,36026 & 36027 OF 2025 Prakash Kumar Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. G.R. Sethi, Adv.

-versus-

State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC COROM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order 28.01.2026 No

18. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Since the issue involved in all the cases is identical, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

4. All these Writ Petitions have been filed inter alia challenging order dt.10.12.2025, so issued by the Collector, Rayagada, whereby Petitioners have been put under transfer.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that Collector, Rayagada is not the competent authority to pass such order of transfer, as in terms of the provisions contained under Odisha Subordinate Welfare Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1992, it is only the Director, (ST), ST & SC Development Minorities and Backward Classes, Welfare Department, Odisha-Op.No.2, who is competent to pass such an order. It is accordingly contended that since the impugned order dt.10.12.2025 has been issued by an incompetent authority, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also contended that by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, though the Petitioners were allowed to continue in their pre-transfer place of posting, but Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.36017 of 2025 was not allowed to continue. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order of transfer so passed by Opp. party No.3 on 10.12.2025 is not sustainable in the eye of law.

6. Basing on the affidavit filed by the Opp. party Nos.3 & 4, learned Addl. Standing Counsel made his submission while supporting the impugned order dt.10.12.2025. It is contended that since the order of transfer passed by the Collector, Rayagada on 10.12.2025, has been given post facto approval by the Director vide his order dt.05.01.2026, so enclosed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit, such order even though was passed by the Collector, since has been approved by the Director, the defect in passing of such order is cured. It is accordingly contended that since the order of transfer has been approved by the competent authority, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the same. It is also contended that on the face of the interim order passed by this Court Petitioners are not coming forward to discharge their duties.

7. To the stand taken in the affidavit, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners made further submission relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Tyagi Vs. Union of India and Others, Crl. Appeal No.581 of 1993, disposed of on 11.02.1994. Hon’ble Apex Court in para-5 of the said order has held as follows:

Two basic questions arise, one, whether the basic transfer order passed against the appellant was valid and in accordance with law and the other if the dismissal order suffers from any infirmity. Taking up the transfer order it is undisputed that the competent authority to transfer the appellant was the Secretary of the department whereas the order was passed by the Director General. It was attempted to be defended by claiming that the power of transfer was delegated. But despite grant of time no order delegating the authority could be produced. The learned Counsel appearing for Union of India had to concede that no order of delegation was on record. We are not prepared to infer delegation because there were orders on the record which indicated that subsequently the Secretary had delegated the powers. It is not delegation earlier or later which is material but whether any delegation existed on the date when the transfer order was passed. Further it is necessary to mention that the respondents having taken definite stand in the written statement that the transfer order was approved but did no