Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.19643 of 2026 SMC Of Nilakantheswar U.P.(M.E.) School, Puri ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Mahendra Kumar Sahoo -versus- State of Orissa and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 30.06.2026 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 the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi to the Opp. Parties, particularly Opp. Party No.1 asking show cause as to why Petitioner's School shall not be provided with teaching staff in compliance of Section 8 (d) of Page 2 of 4. the RCFCE Act 2009 so as to ensure right to free and compulsory education of every child reading in the school without any break, in the event, no show cause or insufficient show cause is filed, then the said rule be made absolute in favour of the petitioner's school, or in alternative, the retired approved Headmaster and the present Asst. Teacher in-charge H.M. going to retire on 30.6.2026, may be allowed to continue till the date of providing teaching staff to the School in question by the Govt. (B) Or in alternative, in the interest of justice & equity, any other appropriate Writ(s), direction(s), order(s) be passed so as to give complete relief to the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner is the School Managing Committee of Nilakantheswar U.P. (M.E.) School, Anatirish in Brahmagiri Block of Puri District. The Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for a direction to the Opposite Parties to give appointment the teachers to the school. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that one of the teachers is due to retire today and after such retirement the school would become teacherless. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to Section 8(d) of the RCFCE Act, stated before this Court that it is the duty of the State Government to provide infrastructure including teaching staff to the schools. For better appreciation such provision is quoted herein below: Page 3 of 4. “Section 8 Duties of appropriate Government- The appropriate Government shall- .......................................... (d) Provide infrastructure including school building, teaching staff and learning equipment:” 5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction of the government in providing better infrastructure to the school and failure in providing the teaching staff, has already approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation dated 04.05.2026 at Annexure-6 to the writ petition. However, no final decision has been taken on such representation. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Party No.1, 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. He further contended that in the event the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.1 for redressal of his grievance and any such representation is pending before the Opposite Party No.1, as has been indicated in the writ petition, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to consider and dispose of such representation in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time. 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 Page 4 of 4. writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner dated 04.05.2026 at Annexure-6, if the same has not been disposed of in the meantime, by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. While considering the representation of the Petitioner, it is open to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider appointment of any teaching staff in the event it is found that the school is functioning without any teaching staff. 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