Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.10484 of 2026 Durga Charan Murudi ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Durgesh Narayan Rath -versus- State Of Orissa & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - Mr. U.C.Jena, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 08.04.2026 01. 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 the above circumstance, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by quashing the letter dated 25.03.2026 issued by the opposite party no.3 under Anenxure-15 to the writ petition and the letter dated 02.04,2026 issued by the opposite party no.4 under Annexure-16 to the writ petition. And this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the opposite parties, more particularly the Page 2 of 4. opposite party no.l to take a decision on the enquiry report submitted by the opposite party no.3 on 23.10.2024 under Annexure-14, pursuant to the direction given by the opposite party no.l on 09.09.2022 under Annexure-10, to put to an end to such frivolous allegation made against the petitioner only to harass him and see that he should not remain in-Charge of the Principal, even though admittedly he is the senior most approved Lecturer of the college. And this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any further order/ orders, direction/ directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that initially the Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Odia by following due procedure of selection on 29.08.1996. Accordingly, the Petitioner joined in duty on 02.09.1996 and has been discharging his duties sincerely since the date of his initial appointment. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that in the year 2022, the name of the Petitioner was recommended for being appointed as the principal of the Institution long with the name of two other candidates. The name of the Petitioner appears at Seral No.3 in the said list. He further contended that the person whose name finds place at Serial Nos.1 & 2 expressed their unwillingness to join as principal of the institution. However, at the time of consideration of the case of the Petitioner for appointment as principal of the institution a complaint was received by the government. Accordingly, an enquiry was ordered against the Petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted that on the basis of the complaint two enquires were conducted on different occasions, one by the Principal of the Institution and the Page 3 of 4. second by the Deputy Collector. In both the enquiry reports the Petitioner has been given a clean chit. Despite such clean chit having been given by the Enquiry Officer, so far, the present Petitioner is concerned, the case of the Petitioner has not been considered for appointment to the post of Principal. He further submitted that the present Principal is going to retire on 31.05.2026. Therefore, the names of potential successors are required to be sent to the Government for appointment to the post of Principal. The apprehension of the Petitioner at this juncture is that the case of the Petitioner may not be considered for such appointment due to inaction of the Government on the inquiry report already submitted by two different authorities. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties-State the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that he has no specific instruction in the matter. He further stated that on a careful examination of the documents annexed to the present writ application it appears that certain allegations were received against the present Petitioner and two enquires at different points in time were ordered against the present Petitioner. He further contended that the Petitioner has also filed the copies of the inquiry report as annexures to the present writ application. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that in the event no final decision has been taken on such inquiry reports by the Government till now, he will have no objection if this Court directs that the Opposite Party Nos.1 to take a final decision on such inquiry reports so far the present Petitioner is concerned, within a stipulated period of time and in accordance with law. Page 4 of 4. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the submission, further on a close scrutiny of the documents annexed to the present writ application and keeping in view the limited nature of the grievance involved in the present writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the inquiry reports received involving the allegation against the present Petitioner and a final decision be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks. It is further directed that in the event it is found that the Petitioner is eligible for appointment as the principal of institution then his case may be considered subject to finalisation of the inquiry report as has been directed hereinabove. It is further made clear that the decision vide letter dated 02.04.2026 under Annexure-16 of the Tahasildar Gop shall abide by the final decision of the Opposite Party No.1 with regard to the inquiry reports submitted in connection with the allegations received against the Petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi