p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RSA No.137 of 1987 [In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of CPC from Judgment dated 17.12.1986 followed by decree dated 23.12.1986 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Bargarh in Title Appeal No.1 of 1985, arising out of the judgment dated 18.12.1984 followed by decree passed by learned Munsif, Bargarh in T.S. No.98 of 1980] Pranabandhu Sarangi …. Appellant -Versus- District Inspector of Schools, Bargarh and others …. Respondents Advocate(s) appeared in this case: For the Appellants :Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate For Respondents :Mr. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 13th January, 2026 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. This is a plaintiff’s appeal against a confirming judgment passed by the then learned Sub-Judge, Bargarh in Title Appeal No.1 of 1985 on 17.12.1986 followed by p. 2 decree dated 23.12.1986, whereby the judgment passed by learned Munsif, Bargarh on 18.12.1984 followed by decree in T.S. No. 98 of 1980 was confirmed. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status before the Trial Court. 3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration that he is a matriculate teacher according to the terms and conditions of the appointment given to him. He claimed that having passed the Part-I Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, he was appointed by the District Inspector of Schools, Bargarh and was allowed to draw pay scale attached thereto. However, by order dated 10.05.1973 passed by the Inspector of Schools, Baragarh alleged excess payment made to him was recovered. Since his repeated representations were not considered, he filed the suit. 3.1 The defendants contested the suit by resisting the claim of the plaintiff in their written statement contending that the plaintiff was allowed to draw the scale of pay of matriculate teacher by falsely representing that p. 3 passing of Part-I Higher Secondary Education is equivalent to passing of matriculation or HSC Examination, which is contrary to the relevant regulation of the Board of Secondary Education. 3.2 On the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for determination: “1. Is there any cause of action? 2. Whether the plaintiff is a Matriculate teacher as per regulations of the Board of secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack? 3. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? 4. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?” 4. After considering the contentions and the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court held under issue Nos. 1 and 2 that the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha not having recognized the equivalence between Part -I of Higher Secondary Education course with that of matriculation, the petitioner had no cause of action to bring the suit and as such, was not entitled to the relief claimed. The suit was thus, dismissed. Page 4 of 5 5. The plaintiff carried appeal to the learned Sub- Judge, who was not inclined to take a view different than that of the Trial Court and hence, dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment. 6. Being further aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “Whether Part-I of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination is equivalent to Matriculation Examination conducted by the Utkal University?” 7. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Jyotsnamayee Sahoo, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 8. Mr. Sahoo brings to the notice of the Court certain developments that have occurred in the meantime. He submits that the plaintiff was subsequently terminated from service, against which he had preferred a writ petition being OJC No.1047 of 1988. Said writ petition was subsequently transferred to the erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal and was reregistered as T.A. No. 7 p. 5 of 1992. By judgment dated 12.11.1992, the Tribunal allowed the application by setting aside the order of termination and by specifically holding that Part-I Higher Secondary School Certification Examination is equivalent to matriculation examination. Pursuant to such judgment, the plaintiff was reinstated in service. Mr. Sahoo fairly submits that in view of such developments, nothing further remains to be decided in the second appeal as the question has already been decided by erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal. Ms. Sahoo, learned State Counsel also submits that the substantial question of law framed has become academic. 9. Having regard to the submissions as above, this Court finds that nothing really survives for consideration in the second appeal, which is therefore, disposed of as infructuous. .………….…………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 13th January, 2026/ A.K. Rana, P.A. Designation: P.A.