Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.3231 of 2026 Prasanna Kumar Behera ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Kunal Kumar Swain -versus- 1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Director,elementary Education,bhubaneswar 3) District Education Officer,sundargarh 4) Block Education Officer,bonaigarh,sundargarh Represented by Adv. – Mr. A. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 02.02.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that although the Petitioner was found suitable and his name was recommended by the DPC for the promotion to the post of Level-IV Graduate Teacher however, his case was not considered along with the candidates whose names were recommended by the DPC. He further alleged that some of the juniors to the Petitioner were also given promotion by virtue of order dated 15.07.2022 at Annexure-6. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has approached this Page 2 of 5. Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.355 of 2025 which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 10.01.2025 with a direction to consider the representation of the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that after disposal of the earlier writ application, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.4 i.e. Block Education Officer, Bonaigarh in Sundargarh District for redressal for his grievance by filing a detailed representation dated 08.09.2025 at Annexure-9. He further submitted that after considering the representation of the Petitioner as per the direction of coordinate Bench of this Court as has been discussed hereinabove, the Opposite Party No.4 has passed an order thereby promoting the Petitioner to the post of Level-IV Graduate Teacher with prospective effect. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that although the name of the Petitioner was cleared by the DPC as eligible for promotion to Level- IV Teacher along with other including some junior to the Petitioner. However, while giving such promotion, the case of the Petitioner was not completed and at the same time his juniors were given promotion. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner should have been given promotion along with other eligible candidates whose name were recommended vide letter dated 08.07.2022 at Annexure-5 and who have been given promotion vide order dated 15.07.2022 at Annexure-6. Since the Opposite Party No.4 has given promotion prospectively the Petitioner, being aggrieved by such decision the Petitioner has once again approached this Court by filing the present writ application. Page 3 of 5. 5. Learned counsel for the State contended that although he does not have specific instruction of the matter, however, on careful consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as after going through the pleadings, learned counsel for the State contended that in the event the Petitioner is aggrieved by such decision, he should have approached the Opposite Parties first for redressal of his grievance before approaching this Court by filing the present writ application. 6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the State referred to the order at Annexure-8 and submitted before this Court that since the Petitioner did not give his choice of School for posting, he was not given promotion on 15.07.2022 along with similar other candidates. On the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the State tried to justify the order dated 11.06.2025 at Annexure-8 whereby the Petitioner has been granted promotion with prospective effect and submitted that the present writ application, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts, taking note of the documents annexed to the present writ application, further on a careful examination of the pleadings as well as the prayer, this Court observes that the case of the Petitioner was initially considered along with the other similarly situated candidates and, vide order dated 08.07.2022, the Petitioner was found suitable for promotion to the post of Level-IV Graduate Teacher (Arts) as per the letter at Annexure-5 series. However, while acting upon such final list and granting promotion vide letter dated 15.07.2022 at Annexure-6, the BEO (Opposite Party No.4) granted promotion to other similarly Page 4 of 5. situated employees without considering the case of the Petitioner. On perusal of letter dated 11.06.2025, at Annexure-8, it appears that the Opposite Party No.4 has taken a ground that since the Petitioner did not given a choice of School for posting, his case was not considered for promotion. Learned counsel for the State, in course of his argument, supported the ground taken in letter dated 11.06.2025 taken by the BEO to deny promotion to the Petitioner w.e.f.15.07.2022. 8. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides and for examination of the factual as well as legal background of the present case, this Court is of the view that not giving choice of School is barely a ground to deny promotion to the Petitioner. Merely because the Petitioner has not exercised his choice with regard to the School where he is to be posted, that cannot take away the right of the Petitioner for promotion to the next higher level, especially once he was found to be suitable for such promotion along with other similarly situated candidates, particularly the juniors to the Petitioner. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the Order dated 11.06.2025, so far as it relates to grant of prospective promotion to the Petitioner, is not legally sustainable and the matter is remanded back to the Block Education Officer, Sundargarh District-Opposite Party No.4 to consider the matter afresh in terms of the discussion hereinabove and pass necessary consequential orders within a period of eight weeks’ from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order by the Petitioner. Final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. Page 5 of 5. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ application stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Sisir Designation: Personal Assistant