Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10862 (ORI)

SUBHASHREE DASH v. STATE OF ODISHA

WP(C)/3685/2026 · 2026-02-09

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3685 of 2026 Subhashree Dash …. Petitioner Mr. G.A. Dora, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.P. Behera, ASC COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 09.02.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for appearing for the Parties. 3. Pursuant to the order dtd.05.02.2026, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner files an affidavit in Court along with RTI application pursuant to which Annexure-12 document was supplied to him. The same be kept in record. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “The Petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that Your Lordship would be graciously pleased to issue rule nisi calling upon the State Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the Opp. Parties should not be directed to promote the Petitioner to the post of Technical Inspector w.e.f 02.04.2025 i.e. from the date the Performa Opp. Parties No. 4 & 5 were promoted to the said post of Technical Inspector with all consequential service and financial benefits. And if the Opp. Party failed to show cause or sufficient cause, the rule be made absolute. And further be pleased to issue any other appropriate writ or order/orders, as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. And for which act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray”. 5. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that highlighting his grievance, Petitioner has made a representation to Opposite Party No.2 vide Annexure-14 and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time, to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection. 6. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition directing Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation filed by the Petitioner vide Annexure-14 within a period of four (4) months in accordance with law from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat