Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.18419 of 2026 Aryaranjan Sahoo ..... Petitioner Mr. M. Pati, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 19.06.2026 Order No. 01 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. M. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order of transfer issued by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 vide notification dtd.15.06.2026 under Annexure-1. Vide the said notification Petitioner was put under transfer from Kapilash Range coming under Dhenkanal division to Khuntuni Range coming under Athgarh Division. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that basing on the request made by the Petitioner before Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-2, Petitioner was given a posting as Deputy Ranger in Kapilash Range vide notification dtd.05.08.2025 under Annexure-3. Subsequently, Petitioner though was given with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Forest Ranger vide notification Page 2 of 3. dtd.17.11.2025 under Annexure-5, but he was allowed to continue in the Kapilash Range as before. But vide the impugned notification, he has been transferred and posted in Khuntuni Range coming under Athgarh Division. 4.1. It is contended that since basing on the request made in Annexure-2, Petitioner was given a posting in Kapilash Range vide notification dtd.05.08.2025, and he was allowed to continue in the said range, even after being extended with the benefit of promotion vide notification dtd.17.11.2025, there was no occasion to transfer him to any other range vide the impugned notification dtd.15.06.2026 under Annexure-1. 4.2. It is also contended that Petitioner as on today has not yet been relieved from his present place of posting. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order of transfer issued under Annexure-1 requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since after being communicated with the impugned notification, Petitioner has not made any grievance seeking modification/ cancellation of the order of transfer, the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court while disposing the writ petition, permits the Petitioner to move Opp. Party No. 1 seeking cancellation/modification of the impugned order dt.15.06.2025. It is observed that if any such application will be moved before Opp. Party No. 1 within a period of two (2) weeks hence, the said Opp. Party shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a further Page 3 of 3. period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation with due communication to the Petitioner. Till a decision is taken as directed, status-quo as on today with regard to continuance of the Petitioner be maintained. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Vacation Judge Sneha