Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.15898 of 2026 Tapoi Panda ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Srikanta Kumar Nath -versus- State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – C.M. Singh, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 24.06.2026 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under aforesaid facts and circumstances, It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to:- (i) Direct/order the opposite .parties to consider the case of the petitioners for reinstatement in service in view of the order/ Judgment passed in similar cases recently as at Annexure-6 series by quashing the order of disengagement issued by the Collector-cum- CEO, Zillaparisad, Jagatsingpur vide order dated 31.07.2019 as at Annexure-3 and allow the petitioner Page 2 of 4. to continue in service. (ii) Pass such other order/direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 4. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the Petitioner, in course of the hearing in the application, drew the attention of this Court to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in RVWPET No.31/2025, wherein the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 17.10.2025 directed as follows:- “24. This Court is, thus, satisfied that the Common judgment dated 22.12.2023, qua the present Petitioner, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record in that it (i) proceeded an unstated but crucial assumption about the cohort/post to which the Petitioner belonged, without adjudicating the rival case borne out by materials; and (ii) consequently applied the no-prejudicial/ritual hearing doctrine to a case where prejudice is self-evident because a determination on facts could well alter the outcome. In the result, the Review Petition is allowed on the following terms: (i)The common judgment dated 22.12.2023 is recalled and set aside qua the present Petitioner alone. Paragraphs and observations therein inconsistent with this judgment shall not operate against her. (ii)Given the completeness of the pleadings and the circumscribed controversy, this Court proceeds to dispose of the Writ Petition on merits forthwith, rather than remand, to avoid further delay. (iii) This disengagement order No.1051 dated 26.03.2018 is quashed, being vitiated for breach of audi alteram partem and for non-application of mind to the advertisement/cohort distinction. (iv)The matter is remitted to the Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla Page 3 of 4. Parishad, Mayurbhanj for a de novo decision, within eight weeks, on the following specific issues: (a)Whether the Petitioner’s engagement vide Order No.209 dated 10.02.2004 was against one of the 16 SC Women posts notified under the 25.03.2003 advertisement; (b)Whether those 16 posts were merged into the 15,682 post-26.09.2003 cohort or stood substantively filled in the first cycle owing to the non-availability of trained SCWomen; (c)The effect, if any, of the second advertisement (Rairangpur 587 posts; 21 SC-Women) and the inservice reservation note on the Petitioner’s provisional placement at Serial No.19, including production and consideration of the final select lists, appointment orders, and the policy basis for inservice earmarking; (d)Consequential application or inapplicability of W.P.(C) No.11748 of 2003 to the Petitioner’s engagement. (v)The Authority shall afford the Petitioner a personal hearing, permit filing of additional documents (including RTI responses, lists, orders), pass a speaking order, and communicate the decision forthwith. Pending the fresh decision, the Petitioner shall be reinstated to engagement within four (4) weeks from receipt of this judgment and continued subject to outcome…” 5. As seen from the aforesaid order passed by the Coordinate Bench; it referred to another order of the Co-ordinate Bench passed in W.P.(C) No.11748 of 2023; it is no more res integra that similar matters are to be dealt similarly. The order passed by the Co- ordinate Benches in RVWPET No.31/2025 and the order passed on 26.02.2026 in W.P.(C) No.37539 of 2025 are to be referred to while dealing with the present case which is substantially similar to Page 4 of 4. one as has been disposed of therein. 6. The Opposite Party No.3, is therefore, directed to consider the case of the Petitioners for reinstatement in the light of the order passed in the aforesaid W.P.(C) No.37539 of 2025 as followed in the matter of RVWPET No.31/2025. 7. As a necessary corollary the disengagement order dated 31.07.2019 stands quashed. The Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Collector- cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jagatsingpur, shall consider the case of the Petitioners in view of the aforestated order passed by the Coordinate Bench both in W.P.(C) No.37539 of 2025 and RVWPET No.31/2025 and complete the entire exercise within a period of six weeks. 8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner volunteers to submit a fresh representation before the Opposite Party No.3 within a period of fifteen days from the date of this order individually. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer