Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.2739 of 2026 Anima Bal ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Satyajit Mohapatra (2) -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. D.K. Sahu, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 29.01.2026 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 these circumstances, the petitioner prays that your Lordships maybe graciously pleased to consider the facts stated in this petition, admit the same, issue notice to the Opp. parties, call for the records and calling upon them to file show cause as to why this writ petition shall not be allowed if she fails to show cause or show insufficient cause, this writ application may kindly be allowed and the Opp. No. 2 i.e. Director Elementary Education, Bhubaneswar, Odisha may kindly be directed to consider the clarification letter dtd. 24.11.2025 Page 2 of 3. issued by the Block Education Officer, Kaptipada Block i.e. Opp. No. 5 and reinstate the petitioner in her service as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Recordchua under Kaptipada block for secure ends of justice. And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/directions are may be deemed just and proper in favour of the petitioner.” 4. The sole grievance of the present Petitioner is that although the Opposite Party No.5 has sought for clarification from the office of the Opposite Party No.2 vide his letter No.3379 dated 24.11.2025 at Annexure-4, however, no such clarification has been provided as of now. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Opposite Party No.2, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, in the event any such letter has been written to the Opposite Party No.2 seeking clarification and no clarification has been provided by the Opposite Party No.2, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to provide necessary clarification on such letter as per law within a stipulated period of time. 6. 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 writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ Page 3 of 3. petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to provide the clarification has sought for under Annexure-4 within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. 7. 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