Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.31295 of 2025 Smt. Beena Pradhan ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Chandiprasad Sahani -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - Amitav Tripathy, A.K. Behera, K.K. Maharana CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 05.05.2026 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the private Opposite Party No.6 and the learned counsel for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:- a) admit this writ petition, b) issue Rule NISI by calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause and after hearing both the parties, c) direct the Opp. Party No.5 to appeal the Page 2 of 4. petition or to join in her place of transfer i.e. Government High School, Hirma, after relieving her counterpart Sri Sudhir Kumar Barik from the said post i.e. Government High School, Hirma in pursuance to the order No.18673 dated 08.10.2025 of Director, Elementary Education, Odisha. d) To pass any other order(s)/direction(s), which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner was initially engaged as Sikshya Sahayak w.e.f. 01.12.2018. Thereafter, the Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Teacher on contractual basis on completion of three years of continuous service w.e.f. 15.12.2021. On completion of six years’ of service the service of the Petitioner was regularized and appointed as a Level-V(A) Elementary Cadre Teacher w.e.f. 14.12.2024. 5. While this was the position, the Petitioner was got transferred on mutual ground vide order dated 08.10.2025. Pursuant to such order of transfer on mutual ground the Petitioner was released from duty on 13.10.2025 by the Opposite Party No.3 to enable her to join her new place of posting. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite Party No.4 accepted the joining letter of the Petitioner at her new place of posting on 18.10.2025 and she was allowed to report before the concerned BEO, Jharsuguda. 6. While this was the position, the Opposite Party No.6, in whose place the Petitioner was transferred on mutual ground, changed his mind and he did not intend to go the place where the Petitioner was working. As a result of which, the order of transfer on Page 3 of 4. mutual ground could not be given effect to. While this was the position, the Petitioner again approached the State Level Transfer Committee by filing an application for transfer on mutual ground. A copy of such application has been filed along with I.A. No.8232 of 2026. On perusal of the said application, it appears that one Dolamani Sahoo has given his consent to be transferred in place of the present Petitioner. However, such prayer for mutual transfer has not been considered by the competent authority. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although the Petitioner was transferred on mutual ground, however, the person against whom the Petitioner was transferred, i.e. Opposite Party No.6, did not join at the place where the Petitioner was working. Hence the Petitioner could not join in place of Opposite Party No.6. He further contended that after the order of transfer was passed the Petitioner was permitted to join before the concerned BEO. He further submitted that in the meantime it appears that the Petitioner has filed another application for transfer on mutual ground, but the same is not within his knowledge. Accordingly, no instruction has been taken with regard to the status of such application dated 21.04.2026 which is stated to be pending before the competent authority. In view of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the State contended that the prayer made in the writ petition is unsustainable in law, and accordingly, the writ petition be disposed of as the same is devoid of merit. 8. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.6 contended that although the Opposite Party No.6 had given consent initially, however, later on the Opposite Party No.6 changed his mind and Page 4 of 4. now he is continuing at his previous place of posting. It was also contended that he has never joined at the Petitioner’s place. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.6 contended that the present writ petition against the Opposite Party No.6 is not maintainable. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submissions and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition can be disposed of at this stage by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 for consideration of his grievance. Since the Petitioner has already filed another application for transfer on mutual ground, subject to the rules applicable, the Opposite Party No.2 shall consider such application dated 21.04.2026 within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout