Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.12809 of 2026 Dr. Manjulata Nayak ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Chitta Ranjan Pattnaik -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.P. Behera, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 30.04.2026 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-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under such circumstance, it is therefore prayed that your Lordship's would be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, call for records and after hearing the parties may be pleased to issue a writ/s/order/s/direction/s/in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dt- 25.09.2023 passed by the opposite party No-1 rejecting her case for promotion to the post of Page 2 of 4. Principal of Physical Education College Tamando Bhubaneswar, Under Annexure-6 as well as the order of promotion issued in favour of opp. No-3 and 4 dt-17/06/2025 by the Director of sports & youth service department Bhubaneswar, under Annexure-7 ignoring her case. And further may issue a writ of mandamus directing the Opp. Parties to give her promotion to the post of Principal in Govt. College Physical Education, Tamando, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda, forthwith, preferably within a stipulated period as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner was initially appointed as lecturer on 11.03.1994 and since then she has been performing her duty. He further contended that while working as such a vigilance case was initiated against the husband of the present Petitioner wherein the Petitioner has been arrayed as a co-accused. The FIR in the aforesaid case was registered on 24.06.2013. He further contended that in the meantime the Petitioner has been transferred and is continuing as lecturer in the Govt. College of Physical Education, Tamando, Bhubaneswar 5. The grievance of the present Petitioner is that although the Petitioner is due to be promoted and the DPC meeting has been convened, however, the case of the Petitioner has not been considered in view of the fact that she has been arrayed as an accused in a vigilance case. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the G.A. & P.G. Department O.M. dated 17.06.2021 at Annexure-10 to the writ petition. He further Page 3 of 4. contended that in a case where a vigilance case or a departmental proceeding is pending against any of the government servant, the DPC shall follow the sealed cover procedure. He further contended that such sealed cover procedure has not been followed in the case of the present Petitioner. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that he has no specific instruction in the matter. However, taking into consideration the submission made in the writ petition the Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the conduct of the Opposite Parties in not considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion. He further submitted that the case of the Petitioner is to be considered in terms of the G.A. & P.G. Department O.M. dated 17.06.2021 at Annexure-10. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Parties to consideration the case of the Petitioner in terms of the above noted office memorandum at Annexure-10. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner subject to her eligibility in terms of the office memorandum dated 17.06.2021, at Annexure-10 to the writ petition, in the next DPC meeting, if the same has not already Page 4 of 4. been considered in the meantime. Any decision taken by the DPC be communicated to the Petitioner expeditiously. 8. 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