IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9785 of 2024 Abhishek Kishan and others …. Petitioner(s) Represented by Adv.– Mr. Gyanendra Chandra Swain, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Party(s) Represented by Adv. Mr. Debraj Mohanty, AGA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 20.03.2026 (Hybrid mode) 19. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this petition, the petitioners have claimed that they are entitled to the scholarship under the Scheme of the State Government being the students pursuing their ITI course belonging to SC & ST categories. It is their further grievance that the technical institutions, which have been allocated to them by the Government for pursuing their courses, have not been notified in the State Government Scholarship Portal. Because of the absence of the names of the institutions in the State Scholarship Portal, the petitioners have been denied the benefit of the scheme. Page 2 of 4 3. This Court directed the State-opposite parties to file additional affidavit disclosing their policies in respect of grant of scholarship, to such SC & ST candidates who are given admission in various I.T.Is. but subsequently those I.T.Is are subjected to action because of the deficiencies detected later. 4. Subsequent to the said order, the affidavit has been filed and this Court taking note of such affidavit passed the order dated 29.07.2025, which reads as under:- “1. The learned Additional Government Advocate refers to the order dated 05.05.2025 to submit that in obedience to the said order, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2- sworn to by the Deputy Director, Scheduled Tribes & Scheduled Castes Development, Minorities & Backward Classes Welfare Department, Government of Odisha. Copy of the said affidavit dated 13.06.2025 is served on the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.4- principal of the college. The learned AGA lays emphasis on paragraph-6 of the affidavit, which is reproduced herein: “6. That, in response to the above letter, the SD & TE Deptt. has furnished the physical verification report along with checklist from vide Letter No.3342/SDTE, dated 30.05.2025, which reveals that there is no proper maintenance of records by the said Institute like individual student’s record files, class wise Attendance register, Hostel Admission & attendance register, drop out list of last academic year etc. As per the above report, the Opp. Party No.4- Institute (i.e. Brahmani Pvt. ITI, Balughat, Rourkela) is not eligible for certification for continuation under the State Scholarship Programme. Page 3 of 4 Copy of the Letter No.3342/SDTE, dated 30.05.2025 along with verification report of DTE & T is annexed herewith as Annexure- B/2.” 2. The opposite party no.4-Principal, Bramhani Pvt. I.T.I, Balughat, Rourkela is directed to file affidavit indicating that the deficiencies as pointed in paragraph-6 of the said affidavit of the Deputy Director is complied with. 3. It is needless to also emphasize that if the deficiencies are complied with and it is placed before the appropriate authority indicating compliance, the authority shall recommend for release of scholarship of the students and the scholarship shall also be released by the appropriate authority to be credited to the appropriate account as per the scheme of grant of scholarship to the students. 4. The opposite party no.4 shall have the liberty to file affidavit indicating details of compliance of the deficiencies as pointed out in paragraph-6 of the affidavit filed by the Deputy Director referred above. 5. List on 25th August, 2025 for orders.” 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that pursuant to the order dated 29.07.2025, the Chhend Pvt. ITI, Rourkela has already complied with the deficiency pointed out. Therefore, the appropriate authority has recommended for release of the scholarship of the eligible students. Hence, the grievances of the petitioners have been attended to. 6. In view of the aforementioned development, no further adjudication is required in the present case, however, we expect the concerned authorities shall do well to pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible attending to the claim of the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. (Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge (Sibo Sankar Mishra) Judge Swarna