Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.13838 of 2026 Gitarani Senapati ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Kunal Kumar Swain -versus- State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Sasmita Nayak, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 12.05.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing 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 the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed; And (A) a writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued directing the opposite parties more particularly to the District Education Officer, Bhadrak opposite party No.3 to transfer / bring back the petitioner to Piripur U.P. Page 2 of 5. (M.E.) School in the district of Bhadrak where she was continuing prior to her transfer to Helpur Government Primary School in view of paragraph:4.7 of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court rendered in the case of Ranjan Kumar Tripathy Vs. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.20875 of 2025 disposed of on 27.11.2025 along with batch of cases), as the next academic session has begun from 01.04.2026, within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court; (B) And any other order / orders or direction/ directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner was initially engaged as a Sikshya Sahayaka on 01.07.2008. He further contended that on completion of six years of service, the Petitioner has been regularized as a Junior Teacher with effect from 01.07.2014 and since that date she has been continuing as a regular Teacher. Presently she has been posted as a Level-V (A) Assistant Teacher in Elementary Cadre. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that while continuing as an Assistant Teacher in Piripur U.P.(M.E.) School, the Petitioner was transferred to Korigaon Government Primary School by virtue of order dated 07.07.2025 of the BEO, Bhandaripokhari. He further contended that order dated 07.07.2025 was modified and the Petitioner was transferred to Helpur Government Primary School in the district of Bhadrak vide order dated 11.08.2025 of the BEO, Bhandaripokhari. Pursuant to such transfer order, the Petitioner has already joined in duty. 6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner has been transferred at the instance of Page 3 of 5. the local MLA. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner, referring to the judgment of this court in the case of Ranjan Kumar Tripathy v. State of Odisha and others decided in W.P.(C) No.20875 of 2025 vide judgment dated 27.11.2025, submitted that the Coordinate Bench has held that such transfer at the instance of the MLAs/MPs is highly illegal and, accordingly, at paragraph 4.7 of the judgment a direction has been given to bring back the teachers who have already been transferred after the end of the academic session. He further submitted that since the academic session has come to an end and the new academic session is likely to begin in near future, the case of the Petitioner be considered in terms of paragraph 4.7 of the judgment in Ranjan Kumar Tripathy’s case (supra). It was also contended that the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.3, the District Education Officer, Bhadrak, by filing a representation dated 06.04.2026 at Annexure-5 to the writ application, however, no final decision has been taken on such representation pursuant to the direction of this court in Ranjan Kumar Tripathy’s case (supra). Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Party No.3, the Petitioner has approached this court by filing the present writ application. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that she has no specific instruction in the matter, however, taking into consideration the averments made in the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto, it appears that the Petitioner has already approached Opposite Party No.3 for redressal of her grievance in terms of the judgment of this court in Ranjan Kumar Tripathy’s case (supra). She further submitted that the State has Page 4 of 5. already preferred a writ appeal against the order of the learned single bench in Ranjan Kumar Tripathy’s case (supra) and awaiting the final verdict in the writ appeal, no final decision has been taken in the matter. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ application is premature. 8. In reply to the contention of the learned counsel for the State that the State-Opposite Parties have preferred a writ appeal, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that no interim order has been passed in the writ appeal and that several persons have been given benefit pursuant to the order passed in Ranjan Kumar Tripathy’s case (supra). In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that there is no legal bar to consider the case of the Petitioner in terms of paragraph 4.7 of the judgment Ranjan Kumar Tripathy’s case (supra). 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the coordinate bench in Ranjan Kumar Tripathy’s case (supra), this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing Opposite Party No.3 to consider the case of the Petitioner in terms of direction contained in paragraph 4.7 of the judgment in Ranjan Kumar Tripathy’s case (supra). The representation of the Petitioner be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within four weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. The final decision so taken be intimated to the petitioner within ten days thereafter. Page 5 of 5. 10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer