Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.20402 of 2026 Prakash Chandra Singh ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Sukanta Kumar Mishra -versus- State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – A.Mohanty, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 06.07.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Virtual 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 documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to quash the termination order dtd. 18.01.2021 under annexure-6 and direct the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner in her former post with all service and financial benefits to the petitioner in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2024) 1 SCC, 175 and the judgement of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Pragnya Paramita Swain versus state of Odisha and others (W.P. (C) No.6795 of 2025, disposed of on 22.05.2026) and batch of cases, which covers the claim of the petitioner. Page 2 of 3. And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/ directions as this Hon'ble Court m may deems fit and proper for the ends of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Gana Sikshyak in Musad Primary School under Harabhanga block. Thereafter, the service of the Petitioner was terminated vide office order dated 18.01.2021 at Annexure-6 on the allegation that the Petitioner had produced a fake OTET certificate. He further contended that in the meantime, a criminal case was also instituted against the present Petitioner. However, such case has ended in acquittal of Petitioner. In course of argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that he has already approached the Opposite Parties for his reinstatement in service, however, no decision has been taken on such prayer of the Petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that he has no specific instruction in the matter. However, he further contended that on a plain reading of writ application and the averments made therein, it does not reflect that the Petitioner has in fact approached the Opposite Parties for redressal of his grievance. Instead approaching the competent authority, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application directly. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State further contended that in the event this Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievance in accordance with the law and within a stipulated period of time, he will have no objection to the same. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by counsels for the Page 3 of 3. respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts, further on a careful analysis of the submissions made and the documents attached to the writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ application by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.3, Collector- cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Boudh by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents within two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall consider the case of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law, by taking into consideration the letter at Annexure-8 keeping in view the judgment to be cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in support of his contention. The representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within eight weeks from the date the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.3 along with a certified copy of this order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within 10 days thereafter. 7. 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