Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.3012 of 2026 Susanti Barik ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Dr. Binoda Kumar Mishra -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 29.01.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court would graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the records and issue RULE NISI calling upon the Opposite parties to show cause as to why: a. the impugned Office Order No.125 dated 17.01.2026, issued by the 0pp. Party No.4 Page 2 of 4. (ANNEXURE-5) shall not be quashed and set aside; and b. The Opp. Parties shall not be directed to allow the petitioner to continue at Mundigada Upper Primary School. If the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or sufficient cause, the said rule may be made absolute. And pass any other appropriate order/orders, Writ/writs, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice.” 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been frequently transferred to different schools in the recent past. He further submitted that being aggrieved by such decision of the Block Education Officer, Tumudibandha, the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.3-Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parisad, Kandhamal by filing a representation dated 23.01.2026 at Annexure-6. In the present writ petition, the Petitioner has assailed the last transfer order dated 17.01.2026 passed by the Block Education Officer, Tumudibandha at Annexure-5. He further submitted that although representation has been filed before the Opposite Party No.3- Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parisad, Kandhamal, however, no final decision has been taken on such representation. Being aggrieved by such delay in considering the representation of the Petitioner, the Petitioner Page 3 of 4. having no other option, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, taking into consideration the fact that the representation of the Petitioner is pending before the Opposite Party No.3 and no final decision has been taken on the same, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with rules and the guidelines applicable and dispose of such representation in a time bound manner. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both the sides and on a careful examination of the dispute involved in the present writ petition, further taking note of the fact that the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.3-Collector-cum- Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parisad, Kandhamal for redressal of her grievance, this Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.3-Collector-cum- Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parisad, Kandhamal to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner dated 23.01.2026 at Annexure-6 in accordance with the applicable rules and the guidelines within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. Page 4 of 4. Let the Petitioner approach the Opposite Party No.3 within two weeks from today along with a copy of this order. The final decision, which is likely to be taken by the Opposite Party No.3, be communicated to the Petitioner within a week thereafter. It is further directed that till a decision is taken by the Opposite Party No.3 on the representation of the Petitioner or for a period of six weeks, whichever is earlier, the Petitioner, if not relieved from the present place of posting, be allowed to continue at her present place of posting. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Debasis