Orissa High Court
*** vs State Of Orissa & Others on 26 February, 2026
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.9875 of 2016
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Smt. Sabita Parida
… Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
State of Orissa & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.
(For the State)
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 06.02.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 26.02.2026
J UD G M E N T
WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page 1 of 15
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 Office Order dated 06.05.2016 under
Annexure-10, which was passed/issued by the Collector-cum-
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj (Opp.
Party No.2) disengaging the petitioner from Shikshya Sahayak
with effect from the forenoon of 19.04.2016.
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which
prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, as per
advertisement of the Government for the selection of Shikshya
Sahayaks in Betnoti Block of Mayurbhanj District, the
petitioner along with others applied for the same. After taking
the application, mark sheets and other documents of the
petitioner into account, the Opp. Parties selected to the
petitioner as Shikshya Sahayak and then, as per the
guidelines of the Government, on proper execution of an
agreement on dated 22.03.2011 with the Collector-cum-Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj (Opp. Party
No.2), she (petitioner) was appointed as Shikshya Sahayak in
WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page 2 of 15
Jalghera Primary School under Tarkani Gram Panchayat of
Betnoti Block in the District of Mayurbhanj.
Thereafter, as per the Office Order dated 31.03.2011 vide
Annexure-3, she (petitioner) worked as Shikshya Sahayak in
N.U.P.S, Barasahi. While she (petitioner) serving there as
Shikshya Sahayak, on dated 28.07.2011, she (petitioner)
received a letter from the Opp. Party No.3 (District Project
Coordinator, Sarba Sikhya Abhijan (SSA), District-
Mayurbhanj) that,
“she (petitioner) has been selected as Shikshya Sahayak
wrongly, because, there was wrong calculation of her marks
during selection process, for which, in the proceeding dated
14.04.2011, it was resolved by the members of the selection
committee to disengage her (petitioner), as, the marks of the
petitioner was not coming under the zone of selection on merit
and directed to the petitioner to reply on the same within 7
days.”
To which, the petitioner challenged by filing WP(C)
No.21265 of 2011, in which, an interim status quo order was
passed on dated 18.08.2011. For which, the petitioner
continued in her service as Shikshya Sahayak.
WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page 3 of 15
The said WP(C) No.21265 of 2011 filed by the petitioner
was disposed of finally on 16.02.2016 directing the Opp. Party
No.3 (District Project Co-coordinator, Sarba Sikhya Abhijan
(SSA District-Mayurbhanj) to take decision independently in
that matter without being prejudiced by the decision of the
selection committee relating to the disengagement of the
petitioner by taking its own independent view.
Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted. In that enquiry,
the Opp. Party No.3 took the decision as per Annexure-9 as
follows:
“the petitioner was not eligible for selection and engagement as
Shikshya Sahayak, as she had secured 90.798% of marks and the
said mark of the petitioner was not coming within the zone of
selection on merit. Hence her selection as Shikshya Sahayak was
wrong and irregular. Therefore, I (Opp. Party No.3) am inclined to
conclude that, her engagement was illegal, unlawful and against the
law. Hence, she is liable for disengagement being appointed basing
on wrong BED marks.”
3. On the basis of the said enquiry report of Opp. Party
No.3 vide Annexure-9, the Opp. Party No.2 passed/issued
office order vide Annexure-10 on dated 06.05.2016 and
disengaged to the petitioner (Sabita Parida) from Shikshya
Sahayak w.e.f. forenoon of 19.04.2016 stating that, her
WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page 4 of 15
engagement as Shikshya Sahayak was unlawful assigning
reasons that,
“she (petitioner-Sabita Parida) has secured 506 marks out
of 1200 in BA Examination. The percentage of marks of which
comes to 42.167%. Similarly in B.Ed. examination she has
secured 462 out of 950. The percentage of marks of which
comes to 48.631%. Accordingly, her total percentage of marks
comes to 90.798%. The cut of marks under BA B.Ed stream
under SEBC category was 107.688%. Similarly, the cut of
marks under BA B.Ed stream under SEBC (Women) category
was 96.076%.
In view of the above position, the petitioner securing total
90.798% of marks was not coming to the zone of selection
during the recruitment year 2010-11, but, somehow, she
managed to place her name in the final merit list of BA B.Ed
stream of SEBC category at SL. No.6 representing 662 marks
against B.Ed. examination instead of 462 marks actually
secured by her and got engagement as Shikshya Sahayak
unlawfully.”
4. To which, the petitioner challenged by filing this writ
petition praying for quashing the Annexure-10 i.e. to the order
WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page 5 of 15
of her disengagement as Shikshya Sahayak on the ground
that, she (petitioner) had submitted all her documents relating
to her educational qualifications and mark sheets before the
selection authorities including the Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 as
per requirement and the Opp. Parties had verified her all
documents and mark sheets in her all examinations including
her B.Ed mark sheets and after proper verification, they (Opp.
Parties) were satisfied with the genuineness of the marks and
documents submitted by the petitioner and thereafter, they
(Opp. Parties) selected to the petitioner as Shikshya Sahayak
and then, they (Opp. Parties) appointed her as Shikshya
Sahayak in the school with effect from 22.03.2011 and
accordingly, she (petitioner) served as a Shikshya Sahayak for
more than 5 years and during her incumbency as Shikshya
Sahayak, there is no adverse remark against her. She
(petitioner) has requisite qualifications to get appointment as
a Shikshya Sahayak. As such, in the selection process, the
petitioner neither had instigated the Opp. Parties i.e. selection
authorities nor she had suppressed any certificate or mark
sheet or had filed any false or manipulated mark sheets before
the selection authorities, but after proper verification of her all
WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page 6 of 15
the documents, certificates and mark sheets, they (Opp.
Parties) had selected her (petitioner) as Shikshya Sahayak
and they had also appointed her as Sikhsya Sahayak by
issuing appointment order.
After giving appointment to the petitioner as Shikshya
Sahayak, the authorities i.e. Opp. Parties are estopped under
law to disengage her from Shikshya Sahayak on the ground
that, their selection to the petitioner as Shikshya Sahayak
was wrong.
For which, the Annexure-10 issued by the Opp. Party
No.2 for her disengagement from Shikshya Sahayak is liable
to be quashed.
5. The Opp. Party No.3 submitted affidavit without
disputing to the selection and appointment to the petitioner as
Shikshya Sahayak taking his stands in support of the
issuance of Annexure-10 that, during selection process, in
course of preparation of the provisional merit list, B.Ed marks
of the petitioner were wrongly entered and her total
percentage of marks were wrongly computed and the said
wrong computation of her B.Ed marks was detected
subsequently after the appointment of the petitioner as
WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page 7 of 15
Shikshya Sahayak, for which, the petitioner was unlawfully
appointed as Shikshya Sahayak. Therefore, she (petitioner) is
liable to be disengaged to provide justice to the candidate
legally and lawfully entitled to get the same. Therefore, the
engagement of the petitioner as Shikshya Sahayak is contrary
to the provisions of law and she (petitioner) has no right to
challenge her disengagement. Therefore, the writ petition filed
by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
7. As per the rival submissions of the learned counsels of
both the sides and on the basis of the writ petition, counter
and Annexures-9 & 10, the crux of this Writ Petition is that,
“Whether the disengagement of the petitioner from
Shikshya Sahayak by the selection authorities after
appointing her and allowing her to serve as Shikshya
Sahayak for a considerable period on the ground of
erroneous calculation of her B.Ed marks during selection
process by the selection authorities is sustainable under
law?”
8. It is the undisputed case of the parties that,
“the petitioner was selected by the Opp. Parties on
dated 22.03.2011 as per Annexure-1, on verification
of her educational certificates and mark sheets and
WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page 8 of 15
she (petitioner) has served as Shikshya Sahayak
since 22.03.2011 to 05.05.2016 and she has been
disengaged as per Annexure-10 issued/passed by
the Opp. Party No.2 on dated 06.05.2016 on the
ground of wrong calculation of her B.Ed. marks by
the selection authorities, which was detected after
her appointment and during the continuation of her
service.”
9. When undisputedly, neither the petitioner was present at
the time of computation of her marks by the selection
authorities, nor she (petitioner) was a party to the
computation of her B.Ed. marks by the selection authorities,
rather she (petitioner) was appointed after the issuance of
joining letter by the Opp. Parties to her.
No allegation has been alleged by the Opp. Parties
against the petitioner about the suppression, non-disclosure
or manipulation of her marks sheets. The petitioner has no
contribution to the computation of the percentage of her
marks by the selection authorities.
10. When she (petitioner) was selected by the Opp. Parties
after proper verification of her all genuine documents,
certificates and mark sheets submitted by her (petitioner) as
per the requirements and when the Opp. Parties had prepared
WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page 9 of 15
the merit list without any sort of involvement of the petitioner
for the preparation of the same, then, at this juncture, the
Opp. Parties are estopped under law to disengage her
(petitioner) subsequently after giving appointment to the
petitioner and after allowing her to serve as Shikshya
Sahayak on the plea that, their selection to the petitioner as
Shikshya Sahayak was wrong.
Because, they (Opp. Parties) are estopped under law to
approbate and reprobate at the same time, i.e. they (Opp.
Parties) cannot express at one hand that, their selection to the
petitioner as Shikshya Sahayak was proper and, on the other
hand that, their selection to the petitioner as Shikshya
Sahayak was wrong/improper.
As such, approbation and reprobation is not permissible
under law. So, the Opp. Parties cannot take advantage of their
own wrong.
11. On this aspect the propositions of law has already been
clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of
the following decisions:
(A) In the cases between Radhey Shyam
Yadav & Another Etc. Vs. State of U.P. &
Others reported in [2024] 1 S.C.R. 21 &WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page 10 of 15
Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary and Others vs.
State of U.P. and Others reported in 2025
SCC OnLine All 8077 that, when the
petitioners cannot not be held responsible for
an irregularity committed by the authorities in
computation of marks that too after the
petitioners were appointed following detailed
scrutiny of the records, then, their engagement
cannot be disengaged.
(B) In a case between Pratima Sahoo Vs.
State of Orissa & Others decided in WPC
No.14057 of 2012 on 09.11.2020 that, the
marks of the petitioner were miscalculated by
the authorities-in-charge of the selection
procedure. As a result of the miscalculation, the
petitioner was held to be eligible to be
appointed as Sikhya Sahayak. The appointment
letter was issued in favour of the petitioner for
engagement as Sikhya Sahayak. The petitioner
had not misrepresented about the marks.
But, as per order dated 26.08.2008, the
petitioner was disengaged from the post of
Sikhya Sahayak. Once the State Government
has allowed the petitioner to believe that she
has qualified in the selection process and is
being appointed as Sikhya Sahayak, the district
administration/ State Government cannot deny
that she does not qualify for the post of Sikhya
Sahayak.
(C) In the cases between Rajanikanta
Priyadarshy vs Utkal University Rep.
Through Its Registrar and Others reported
in AIR 2015 (NOC) 346 (ORI.) that, the result
of +3 regular examination 2010 of the petitioner
having been published and on that basis, the
petitioner undergone higher studies and passed
in different courses, subsequently his initial
result cannot be cancelled on the ground that,
he has failed in the said examination.
(D)In a case between Bikash Mahalik Vs.
State of Odisha & Others reported in 2022
(I) ILR Cuttack 108 that, the petitioner, while
continuing as Jr. Clerk, having completed
about one year and four months of service
WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page 11 of 15
under opposite party no.3, all on a sudden,
opposite party no.3 issued show-cause notice
on dated 31.03.2015 that, as to why he shall
not be terminated from Government Service
stating that, practical skill test shall be
qualifying in nature and the marks awarded in
practical skill test should not be added to the
marks secured by the candidates in the written
test examination. The said show cause quashed.
(E)In a case between Ambika Prasad Mohanty
And Etc. vs Orissa Engineering College And
Anr. reported in (1989) (1) OLR 440 that, a
student admitted after satisfying all the
qualifications. Subsequently, his admission is
cancelled and he cannot prosecute his studies
elsewhere. In that case, rule of estoppel is
applicable.
(F)In a case between Dina Nath Pandey &
Others Vs. Adya Pandey reported in (2017)
(Supp.) Civ.C.C 307 (Delhi) that, no one can
take benefit of his own wrong.
(G)In a case between G. Vikram Kumar Vs.
State Bank of Hyderabad and Ors.reported
2023 (3) CCC 84 (SC) that, no one can be
permitted to get the benefit of his own wrong.
(H)In a case between Sandip Routray Vs.
Airport authority of India & another
reported 2010 (Supp.-I) OLR — 707 that, a
wrong doer is not entitled to take advantage of
his own wrong. (Para – 11)
(I)In a case between State of Orissa & Others
Vs. Mangalam Timber Products Limited
reported in 2003 (9) SCALE 578 that, State
cannot take advantage of his own omission or
fault.
(J)In a case between Salem Muslim Burial
Ground Protection Committee Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported 2023 (2) CCC
215 that, law does not permit a person to both
approbate and reprobate, as no party can
accept and reject the same instrument.
WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page 12 of 15
12. Here in this matter at hand, when without alleging any
allegations by the Opp. Parties against the petitioner about
the practicing of any fraud, suppression of fact,
misrepresentation, instigation or manipulation for her
selection and appointment as Shikhsya Sahayak, the Opp.
Parties disengaged her (petitioner) as per Annexure-10, on the
ground that, she (petitioner) was wrongly selected and
appointed by them (Opp. Parties) as Shikshya Sahayak, then,
at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in
the ratio of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and
Apex Court, they (Opp. Parties) including the Opp. Party No.2
are estopped/precluded under law to take any advantage of
their own wrong, as the law does not permit the Opp. Parties
to approbate and reprobate at the same time i.e. at one hand
to say that, their selection and appoint to the petitioner as
Shikshya Sahayak was proper at the same time on the other
hand, to say that, their selection and appointment to the
petitioner as Shikshya Sahayak was wrong.
13. Therefore, by applying the principles of law enunciated in
the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to this matter at hand, it is
WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page 13 of 15
held that, the disengagement of the petitioner as per
Annexures-9 & 10 from Shikshya Sahayak by the Opp. Parties
including Opp. Party No.2 is not sustainable under law. The
same are liable to be quashed.
14. As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the
petitioner. The same is to be allowed.
15. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
allowed.
16. The Annexures-9 & 10 issued by the Opp. Party Nos.3 &
2 to the petitioner for her disengagement from Shikshya
Sahayak are quashed.
When the Annexures-9 & 10 are quashed holding that,
the issuances of Annexures-9 & 10 relating to the
disengagement of the petitioner from Shikshya Sahayak were
not legal, then, it is deemed as per law about the continuation
of the petitioner as Shikshya Sahayak since her appointment
i.e. since 22.03.2011 without any disengagement for all
practical purposes for consideration of her regular
employment in the Department as per law and the guidelines
of the Government without any payment to her during the
WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page 14 of 15
period since 06.05.2016 till this date of Judgment, during
which she (petitioner) has not worked.
The Opp. Parties are directed to allow her (petitioner) to
work since 27.02.2026 either as Sikshya Sahayaka or any
other post in respect of which, the Sikshya Sahayakas like the
petitioner have been allowed to work.
Free copies of this Judgment be supplied to the parties
as well as the learned counsels of both the sides immediately
for their information and necessary compliances.
17. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 26 .02. 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 26-Feb-2026 14:53:12
WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page 15 of 15
