Orissa High Court
*** vs State Of Odisha & Others on 6 May, 2026
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.13709 of 2026
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Upendra Kumar Behera
… Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others
… Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Nath, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S. Nayak,
Addl. Standing Counsel.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERAWP(C) No.13709 of 2026 Page 1 of 8
Date of Hearing : 06.05.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 06.05.2026J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.–
1. This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner
praying for quashing the impugned order No.30 dated
02.01.2019 (Annexure-5) passed by the Collector-cum-Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parisada (Opp. Party No.2) relating to
the disengagement of the petitioner from Swechhasevi Sikshya
Sahayak and to direct the Opp. Parties through issuance of
Writ of Mandamus for the reinstatement of the petitioner on
the basis of the Judgment dated 17.06.2025 (Annewxure-6)
passed in Review Petition No.31/2025.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he (petitioner) was
properly selected as Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak as per
order dated 26.12.2003 of the Opp. Party No.2 and
accordingly, he (petitioner) had joined on dated 29.12.2003 in
a primary school as Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak under
WP(C) No.13709 of 2026 Page 2 of 8
Soroda Block of Bhanjanagar Education District in the
District of Ganjam.
When, he (petitioner) was continuing as Swechhasevi
Sikshya Sahayak, surprisingly, all of a sudden as per Order
No.30 dated 02.01.2019 (Annexure-5), the Opp. Party No.2
disengaged him (petitioner) from Swechhasevi Sikshya
Sahayak without giving him (petitioner) an opportunity of
being heard.
To which, the petitioner has challenged by filing this Writ
Petition praying for quashing the Order No.30 dated
02.01.2019 (Annexure-5) of his disengagement from
Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak issued by the Opp. Party No.2
on the basis of the Judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed in
RVWPET No.31/2025 and to reinstate him.
3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned ASC for the State.
4. During the course of hearing of this Writ Petition, the
learned counsel for the petitioner cited the Judgment dated
17.10.2025 passed by this Court in RVWPET No.31/2025.
WP(C) No.13709 of 2026 Page 3 of 8
It appears from the Judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed
in RVWPET No.31/2025 between Banita Behera Vs. State of
Odisha & Others that, the petitioner in this Writ Petition is
similarly placed with the petitioner of the aforesaid disposed of
RVWPET No.31/2025.
Because, the Annexure-5, to which, the petitioner has
challenged in this Writ Petition, the same was also under
challenge in RVWPET No.31/2025 and like the petitioner, the
petitioner in RVWPET No.31/2025 was serving as a
Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak on being selected and
appointed like the petitioner and the petitioner of RVWPET
No.31/2025 was also disengaged by the Opp. Party No.2 in
the same letter No.30 dated 02.01.2019 vide Annexure-5 by
the Opp. Party No.2 like the petitioner, but the disengagement
of the petitioner in RVWPET No.31/2025 has been quashed as
per its Judgment dated 17.10.2025.
5. When the petitioner in this Writ Petition is similarly
placed with the petitioner in RVWPET No.31/2025, then, as
per law, the Judgment in this Writ Petition is required to be
WP(C) No.13709 of 2026 Page 4 of 8
passed alike to the aforesaid Judgment dated 17.10.2025
passed by this Court in RVWPET No.31/2025.
Because, it is the settled propositions of law that, like
cases are to be decided alike and similarly placed petitioner in
all the cases are entitled to get the equal treatment without
any discrimination.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Ardhendu Sekhar Rath
and another urs. State of Odisha and others:
reported in 2019(II) OJR-491 that, Article 14
of the Constitution of India, 1950 prescribes
equality before law, law should be deal alike
with all in one class that, there shall be equity
of treatment under equal circumstances, which
means “that equals should not be treated
unlike and unlike should not be treated alike,
likes should be treated as alike.”
(ii) In a case between Dakshin Haryana Bijli
Vitran Nigam and others urs. Bachan Singh
reported in 2009(SC)-2745 that, as per Article
14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is that, all
persons similarly placed shall be treated alike,WP(C) No.13709 of 2026 Page 5 of 8
both in privileges conferred and liabilities
imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied
to all in the same situation without any
discrimination.
(iii) In a case between Anupama Mallick
urs. State of Odisha and others decided in
W.P.(C) No.5813 of 2026 at Para No.6 that,
like the cases are to be decided alike and arc
similarly placed entitled to get equal
applicants/petitioners treatments from the
Court without any discrimination.
(iv) In a case between Manjulata Behera Vs.
State of Odisha & Others decided on
20.03.2026 in WP(C) No.37539 of 2025 that,
like cases are to be decided alike and similarly
placed applicant/petitioner is entitled to get
equal treatment from the Court without any
discrimination.
6. So, applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio
of the aforesaid decisions to this matter at hand, it is held
that, the petitioner in this writ petition being equal with the
petitioner in the disposed of RVWPET No.31 of 2025, he
(petitioner) is entitled to get equal treatment/judgment like
the petitioner in RVWPET No.31 of 2025 and there cannot be
WP(C) No.13709 of 2026 Page 6 of 8
any discrimination between them. Because, as per law, the
persons, those are similarly situated/placed should be treated
similarly.
7. Therefore, there is no other alternative for this Court,
but, to dispose of this writ petition passing similar judgment
in the line of the judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed in
RVWPET No.31 of 2025.
8. Hence, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.
The disengagement of the petitioner as per Order No.30
dated 02.01.2019(Annexure-5) issued by the Collector-cum-
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ganjam (Opposite
Party No.2) is quashed being vitiated for breach of audi
alteram partem and non-application of mind to the
advertisement/cohortdistinction with the other similar
conditions indicated in para no.24 of the judgment dated
17.10.2025 passed in the earlier RVWPET No.31 of 2025 by
this Court.
9. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
disposed of finally.
WP(C) No.13709 of 2026 Page 7 of 8
Interim order, if any, passed earlier in any of the
petitions stands vacated.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 06 .05. 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak/Jagabandhu
Sr. Stenographer
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 07-May-2026 16:54:26
WP(C) No.13709 of 2026 Page 8 of 8
[ad_1]
Source link
