Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.4966 of 2025 Ratnakar Nayak ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Banshidhar Satapathy -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. D.K. Sahu, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 20.01.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the humble petitioners fervently pray this Hon'ble Court to be graciously pleased to issue notice to the opp. parties, call for relevant records and after hearing the counsel of parties, issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the impugned order No. 32732/SME dtd. 31.12.2024 under Annexure-1 and commanding the Opp. parties particularly to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, School and Mass Education Department, Odisha, the Opp. Party No. 1 to issue engagement order in favour of the petitioners engaging them as Sikshya Sahayak in respect of Koraput Page 2 of 5. district within a stipulate period. And/ or pass such other order/ orders or direction/directions as deems fit and proper in the interest of justice; And for this act of your kindness, the humble petitioners shall as in duty bound, ever pray.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that earlier the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.2728 of 2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 03.02.2022 by granting liberty to the Petitioner to file the representation before the Opposite Party No.1 with the further direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the same in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Babita Satpathy vs. State of Odisha (W.A. No.701 of 2019). After disposal of the earlier writ application, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation. The Opposite Party No.1 vide order dated 31.12.2024 at Annexure-1 by passing a speaking order has disposed of the representation of the Petitioner and the prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected. Being aggrieved by such order of the Opposite Party No.1, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the issue is involved in the present writ application was directly and substantially in issue in the case of Dhaneswar Das and others vs. State of Odisha decided in W.P.(C) No.32208 of 2023 and batch of similar writ application which was disposed of vide a common judgment dated 19.12.2025. A coordinate Bench of this Court after taking note of all the relevant judgments quashed impugned order and directed the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Page 3 of 5. Petitioner against unfilled vacancy of 2014 akin to the manner in which the Division Bench of this Court directed in the case of Babita Satpathy’s case (supra). Referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the coordinate Bench in the case of Dhaneswar Das and others. 6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the order passed by this Bench in Rashmi Ranjan Mohanty and others vs. State of Odisha and others decided in W.P.(C) No.1215 of 2026 vide order dated 15.01.2026 submitted that this Court, referring to the judgment in Babita Satpathy’s case and Dhaneswar Das’s case (supra), has disposed of the writ application by granting liberty to the Petitioner to file representation before the Opposite Party No.1 along with supporting documents and the copies of the judgments relied upon by the Petitioner with a corresponding direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the ratio laid down in the above noted judgments. He further contended that the case of the Petitioner is also covered by the order passed in Rashmi Ranjan Mohanty’s case (supra) by this Bench. 7. While assailing the impugned order dated 31.12.2024 at Annexure-1, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite Party No.1 has proceeded on a wrong scrutiny and by the ratio laid down in Babita Satpathy’s case (supra), the prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected. He further submitted that the judgments rendered in the case of Dhaneswar Das’s case and others (supra) and Rashmi Ranjan Mohanty and others (supra) have not been taken into consideration. Since the above noted two judgments, learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that it is not open to Page 4 of 5. the Opposite Parties to take a different stand in the case of the Petitioner than the one taken in the above noted two judgments. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Opposite Party No.1 is unsustainable in the eye of law and, accordingly, the same should be quashed. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however on perusal of the rejection order dated 31.12.2024 at Annexure-1 by the Opposite Party No.1 it appears that the case of the Petitioner has been duly considered and it was found that the prayer made by the Petitioner is legally unsustainable. Accordingly, Opposite Party No.1, after considering the case of the Petitioner, has been pleased to reject his representation as well as the prayer made by the Petitioner. He further submitted that in the event the Petitioner seeks reconsideration of his grievance by the authorities in terms of the judgments referred to hereinabove, he will have no objection in the event, this Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 again with the further direction of the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the two later judgments referred to hereinabove and to dispose of the Petitioner’s representation strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the backgrounds facts, further taking note of the common judgment of this Court in Dhaneswar Das’s case and others (supra) and Rashmi Ranjan Mohanty’s case (supra), this Court deems it proper to set aside order dated 31.12.2024. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party Page 5 of 5. No.1 to reconsider the prayer of the Petitioner in terms of the common judgment by the coordinate Bench in Dhaneswar Das’s case and others (supra) as well as the order passed by this Bench in Rashmi Ranjan Mohanty’s case and others (supra). Let the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a representation along with all relevant documents and judgments within a period of three weeks. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider and dispose of the writ petition within a period of eight weeks by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 10. With the aforesaid observation/discussion, the writ application stands disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Sisir Designation: Personal Assistant