Page 1 of 19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P(C) No.20796 of 2026

An application filed under Article 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India.

Dr. Madhubrata Satpathy ..... Petitioner

Mr.Dillip Kumar

Mohapatra, Advocate

Along with

Mr.Balaram Behera,

Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties

Mr.Unmesh

Chandra Jena, A.S.C. for

the State-Opp. Parties

CORAM:

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

_____________________________________________________

Date of Hearing : 21.07.2026 | Date of Judgment: 23.07.2026

_____________________________________________________

A.K. Mohapatra, J. :

1. The Petitioner, who is working as an Associate Professor

in Economics at BJB Autonomous College, Bhubaneswar, has

approached this Court by filing the present writ application with a

prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties by issuing a writ of

mandamus to the Opposite Parties to approve the name of the

Page 2 of 19

Petitioner as Principal-in-Charge of the abovenamed college as per

the recommendation of the previous Principal vide letter No.1749

dated 20.04.2026 at Annexure-6. The background facts of the

present writ application, in a nutshell, is that the Petitioner was

initially appointed as a Junior Lecturer in the Department of

Economics in Sailabala Women’s College on 18.12.1991. While

working as such, the Petitioner got promoted to the post of

Associate Professor (Stage-III) on 15.09.2018. Furthermore, while

continuing as Associate Professor (Stage-III), the then Principal of

the BJB Autonomous College vide letter No.2953 dated

08.09.2022 recommended the name of the present Petitioner,

along with other Associate Professors to the Government, for

appointment the Petitioner as Vice Principal-in-Charge of the

college, i.e. the post which was lying vacant. In the said letter, it

has been specifically mentioned that the post of Vice Principal is

lying vacant since 01.03.2021 after retirement of the erstwhile

Vice Principal.

2. As per the recommendation of the then Principal of the

college vide letter dated 08.09.2022 at Annexure-2, the

Government was pleased to approve the name of the Petitioner for

the post of Vice Principal in addition to her own duty until further

Page 3 of 19

orders with a direction to the Principal to assign the work of Vice

Principal to the petitioner. A copy of such appointment letter dated

07.10.2022 has also been filed along with the writ application as

Annexure-3. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter of the Government,

the Petitioner was allowed to function as Vice Principal-in-Charge

of the college vide office order dated 10.10.2022 of the Principal

of the college.

3. Such appointment of the Petitioner as Vice Principal-in-

Charge of the abovenamed college continued till appointment of

the regular Vice Principal of the college. On the appointment of a

regular Vice Principal of the BJB Autonomous College, the tenure

of the Petitioner as Vice Principal-in-Charge of the college came

to an end and, thereafter, she was transferred to some other

college. It is apt to mention here that such transfer of the Petitioner

was questioned by the present Petitioner on the ground of legality

and validity of such order of transfer by the Government.

Accordingly, the Petitioner filed two writ applications bearing

W.P.(C) No.5152 of 2026 and W.P.(C) No.4704 of 2024. Both the

writ applications were disposed of vide a common order thereby

quashing the order of transfer of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the

Petitioner submitted an undertaking to the effect that she is ready

Page 4 of 19

to work as Associate Professor and will not insist upon working as

Vice Principal-in-Charge of the college.

4. While this was the position, and the Petitioner was

continuing as an Associate Professor at BJB Autonomous College,

Bhubaneswar, the then incumbent Principal, namely Dr. Rita Das,

Professor in Chemistry, took retirement from service on attaining

the age of superannuation with effect from 30.06.2026. As per the

practice and procedure, the outgoing Principal submitted the

names of three senior-most Associate Professor to the government

for approval of their names as Principal-in-Charge of the college

in question, as per their seniority, vide letter No.1749 dated

20.04.2026. On a perusal of the letter at Annexure-6 to the writ

application, it appears that names of three persons were

recommended by the outgoing Principal on the basis of their

seniority, which is reproduced below:-

Sl.

No.

Name &

Designation

Date of

Birth

Date of

entry in to

Govt.

service

(OES)

Govt.

Notification as

per OPSC

recommendation

Date of

Associate

Professor

Remarks

1. Smt.Jayanti

Behera,

Associate

Professor of

Zoology

02.10.1966 24.01.1990 No.1923/EYS,

Dt.12.01.1990

24.01.2011 Submitted an

application

expressing

unwillingness

for consideration

as Principal, I/c

(copy attached)

Page 5 of 19

2. Dr.

Madhubrata

Satpathy,

Associate

Professor of

Economics

25.09.1966 18.12.1991

(adhoc)

17.11.1992

(OPSC)

No.58002/EYS,

Dt.12.12.1991

No.53295/EYS,

Dt.17.11.1992

15.09.2023

3. Dr. Kanhu

Charan

Padhy,

Associate

Professor of

Odia

22.10.1968 21.12.1991

(adhoc)

20.08.1992

(OPSC)

No.57955/Edn.

Dt.12.12.1991

No.39444/E,

Dt.19.08.1992

15.09.2023

Out of the names recommended by the outgoing Principal,

the senior-most teacher, namely Smt.Jayanti Behera, Associate

Professor, Zoology, expressed her unwillingness in writing before

the government by submitting an application for consideration to

act as Principal-in-Charge of the college due to her health

condition. As a result, two names remained for consideration. The

name of the Petitioner appears at Sl No.2 and name of Dr.Kanhu

Charan Padhy, Associate Professor, Odia, appears at Sl No.3. In

the writ application, the Petitioner has taken a specific stand that

the senior-most person, namely Smt.Jayanti Behera, doesn’t

possess Ph.D. qualification, whereas the Petitioner, who is at Sl

No.2, possesses a Ph.D degree, and as such, she is eligible to be

considered for appointment as the Principal-in-Charge of the

college. Moreover, the Petitioner has a shorter period of service

Page 6 of 19

left, i.e., 3 months, as she is likely to retire from service on

attaining superannuation with effect from 30.09.2026.

5. Heard Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for

the Petitioner as well as Mr. U.C. Jena, learned Additional

Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the Writ

Application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

6. Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner whose name

appears at Sl No.2 of the recommendation letter at Annexure-6 is

the fittest person to be appointed as the Principal-in-Charge of the

BJB Autonomous College as the senior-most person, namely

Smt.Jayanti Behera, has expressed her unwillingness in writing

before the Government. He further contended that as per the

practice and procedure, the outgoing Principal shall recommend

three senior-most eligible persons for being appointed as the

Principal-in-Charge of the college till a regular Principal of the

college is appointed. Despite such recommendation in favor of the

Petitioner and the senior-most candidate having expressed her

unwillingness, the Government has shown inaction in appointing

the Petitioner as Principal-in-Charge of the college. Being

aggrieved by such conduct of the State-Opposite Parties, the

Page 7 of 19

Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ

application.

7. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner

extensively referred to the letter dated 20.04.2026 at Annexure-6

written by the outgoing Principal of the BJB Autonomous College

to the Opposite Party No.1 recommending three names belonging

to the OES Officers Cadre for being appointed as Principal-in-

Charge of the college and for delegation of heads of office and

DDO powers in respect of the BJB Autonomous College,

Bhubaneswar. By referring to the aforesaid letter, learned counsel

for the Petitioner further contended that since the outgoing

Principal was retiring on 30.06.2026, she has recommended the

names of three senior-most teaching faculty, who are Associate

Professors, and, as such, eligible for being appointed as Principal-

in-Charge of the college. Despite such recommendation by the

outgoing Principal, the Opposite Party No.1 has not taken any

steps to appoint the present Petitioner as the Principal-in-Charge

of the college. He further contended that in the absence of a

Principal-in-Charge of the college having DDO power, the

college, in question, is facing innumerable difficulties. It was also

brought to the notice of the Court that this being the admission

Page 8 of 19

season, the office of the Principal of the college remains busy in

the process of smooth administration of the admission process and

a lot of administrative work is required to be discharged by the

office of the Principal. Therefore, in the absence of a regular

Principal of the college, the Opposite Parties should have

immediately appointed a Principal-in-Charge of the college by

conferring the DDO power on such teaching faculty.

8. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the

Petitioner laid much emphasis on the eligibility of the present

Petitioner by referring to Rule 3(2) of the Odisha Education

Service (College Branch) Recruitment Rules, 2020 (referred to as

“Rules, 2020”), and contended before this Court that any teaching

faculty who is either Assistant Professor (Stage-III) or of higher

cadre may be considered for appointment to the administrative and

semi-academic post. He further contended that despite the

Petitioner having all the eligibility requirements and after her

name being recommended by the outgoing Principal, the Opposite

Parties have failed to appoint the Principal-in-Charge of the

college. It was also contended that the Petitioner being the senior-

most teaching faculty available in the college, after unwillingness

was expressed by the senior-most teaching faculty, namely,

Page 9 of 19

Smt.Jayanti Behera, has a legitimate expectation to be appointed

to the prestigious post of Principal-in-Charge of a reputed college

of the state, like the BJB Autonomous College, Bhubaneswar.

Moreover, she has only a short tenure before she takes retirement

on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from

30.09.2026. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the

Petitioner contended that the Opposite Parties have committed a

gross illegality by ignoring the name of the present Petitioner and

not giving her appointment to the post of Principal-in-Charge

despite unwillingness being expressed in writing before the

Government by the senior-most teaching faculty, namely,

Smt.Jayanti Behera.

9. Per contra, the learned Additional Standing Counsel

representing the State-Opposite Parties filed a copy of the

instruction dated 20.07.2026. Several adjournments were taken by

the Opposite Parties to file their reply affidavit, however, such

affidavit could not be filed in-time and, considering the urgency

involved in the matter, this Court proceeded with the hearing of

the matter accepting the instruction received by the learned

Additional Standing Counsel from the Joint Secretary to

Page 10 of 19

Government, Higher Education Department, vide letter dated

20.07.2026.

10. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the basis of the

instruction received, submitted before this Court that as per the

recommendation of the outgoing Principal at Annexure-6,

Smt.Jayanti Behera is presently the senior-most Associate

Professor available in BJB Autonomous College, Bhubaneswar.

He further contended that Smt.Behera has submitted a

representation before the government expressing her unwillingness

to discharge the duties of the Principal-in-Charge. Furthermore,

such unwillingness doesn’t automatically confer any right upon

the Petitioner to be appointed as Principal-in-Charge. Acceptance

or rejection of such unwillingness is entirely with the discretion of

the competent authority.

11. Learned counsel for the State would further refer to the

instruction dated 20.07.2026, and submit before this Court that the

Petitioner has incorrectly projected herself to be the next senior-

most faculty member of the college. Further, on the basis of the

instruction, it was argued before this Court that after Smt.Jayanti

Behera, Dr.Kanhu Charan Padhy, Associate Professor in Odia, is

the senior-most to the Petitioner in regular government service.

Page 11 of 19

Argument was advanced by the learned Additional Standing

Counsel on the basis of the instruction to justify that Dr.Kanhu

Charan Padhy is senior to the present Petitioner. It was also argued

that the ad-hoc service rendered by the Petitioner prior to her

regular appointment has never been regularized and the same

cannot be reckoned for determining inter-se seniority. On such

ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the present

Petitioner is not the next senior-most faculty member after

Smt.Jayanti Behera.

12. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the State

also referred to the provisions contained in Rule-3 of the Rules,

2020. He further submitted that there exists no statutory provision

under the Rules, 2020 or under any other statute providing that the

senior most or the next senior most faculty member shall

automatically be appointed as Principal-in-Charge of the college.

Emphasis was laid on the words, “Government shall be competent

to appoint” college teachers of the rank of Associate Professor

(Stage-III) and above to administrative and semi-academic posts.

In view of such provision, learned counsel for the State contended

that the Principal-in-Charge being an administrative post, the same

is to be filled up by the government having regard to the

Page 12 of 19

administrative suitability, institutional requirements, and public

interest and not merely on the basis of seniority. It was also

contended that the recommendation of the outgoing Principal vide

letter dated 20.04.2026 is recommendatory in nature and that the

same can never have any binding effect on the government to

appoint any particular person on the basis of such

recommendation. It was also contended that no specific

qualification has been provided for in any of the rules for

appointment to the post of Principal-in-Charge. On such ground,

learned counsel for the State contended before this Court that the

writ application is devoid of merit and that the Petitioner has no

right to claim for appointment to the post of Principal-in-Charge of

the college. Accordingly, it was prayed that the writ application be

dismissed at the threshold.

13. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both

sides, on a careful examination of the documents annexed to the

writ application, further on a careful consideration of the

instruction of the Higher Education Department vide letter dated

20.07.2026, this Court observed that in the present writ

application, the Petitioner seeks for a direction to the Opposite

Parties to act upon the recommendation of the outgoing Principal

Page 13 of 19

of BJB Autonomous College vide her letter dated 20.04.2026 and

to appoint the present Petitioner as Principal-in-Charge of the said

college. It is true that there is no specific provision regarding

appointment of Principal or Principal-in-Charge of any college in

the Rules, 2020. The only provision that exists in the Rules, 2020

is Rule 3(2), which provides as follows:-

“3. Constitution of Service and Service condition-

…

(2) The Government shall be competent to appoint

college teachers of the rank of Assistant Professor

(Stage-III) and above in administrative and semi-

academic posts.”

In view of the provisions contained in the aforesaid Rule,

any member of the teaching faculty holding the post of Associate

Professor (Stage-III) or above could be considered for

appointment to any administrative and semi-academic post. It is

not disputed that the post of the Principal-in-Charge is an

administrative post. The question therefore arises as to whether the

Petitioner is eligible to be appointed as the Principal-in-Charge of

the BJB Autonomous College, Bhubaneswar?

14. So far the factual background of the present case is

concerned, it is not disputed that the present Petitioner is working

as the Associate Professor in Economics in BJB Autonomous

Page 14 of 19

College, Bhubaneswar. It is also a fact that the outgoing Principal

of the college vide her letter dated 20.04.2026 recommended the

names of three senior most faculties having the eligibility criteria

for being considered for appointment to the post of Principal-in-

Charge of the college. The name of the Petitioner in that list at

Annexure-6 appears at Sl No.2. The person whose name appears at

Sl No.1, namely Smt.Jayanti Behera, expressed her unwillingness

in writing to the government for being appointed as the Principal

in-Charge of the college. Therefore, this court presumes that the

Government could not have appointed the senior most teaching

faculty as the Principal-in-Charge of the college without her

consent. The next name that appears in the list is the name of the

present Petitioner who is presently working as the Associate

Professor of Economics. Therefore, in terms of Rule-3(2) of the

Rules, 2020 which is the only eligibility criteria for being

appointed to any administrative or semi-academic post, the

Petitioner being an Associate Professor above the rank of

Assistant Professor (Stage-III) is eligible for such appointment.

15. With regard to the seniority of the present Petitioner vis-à-

vis the person whose name appears at Sl No.3 of the list, this

Court, on a careful examination of the documents on record found

Page 15 of 19

that the person at Sl No.3, namely Dr.Kanhu Charan Padhy,

Associate Professor in Odia has never challenged either his

placement or the seniority of the present Petitioner. It is not the

case of the Opposite Parties that the abovenamed Dr.Kanhu

Charan Padhy has ever assailed the seniority of the present

Petitioner. In the instruction dated 20.07.2026, the Opposite

Parties have also not disputed the placement of the names and the

order in which the same was recommended to the State

Government. In fact, in the instruction, it has been stated that such

recommendation vide letter dated 20.04.2026 was only

recommendatory in nature and that the outgoing Principal

recommended three eligible senior faculty members for

consideration by the government and did not recommend the

Petitioner alone and, therefore, the recommendation cannot be

construed as conferring any enforceable right upon the petitioner.

The aforesaid statement in the instruction dated 20.072026 appears

to be perfectly justified and legal. While referring to the letter

dated 20.04.2026, the Opposite Parties have not disputed the

seniority of the persons and the order in which their names have

been recommended to the government. It has only been stated that

Page 16 of 19

such recommendation doesn’t call for any enforceable right upon

the Petitioner.

16. On a careful analysis of the factual background of the

present case, this Court found that the outgoing Principal of the

college has retired from service on attaining the age of

superannuation with effect from 30.06.2026. Before her

retirement, she had recommended the names of three senior-most

faculty members to the Government, vide her letter dated

20.04.2026 at Annexure-6. Although such recommendation was

made in the month of April 2026, till date no steps have been

taken to either select a regular Principal of the college or to

appoint a Principal-in-Charge of the college. Considering the fact

that the BJB Autonomous College, situated in the heart of the

Bhubaneswar city, is one of the premier educational institutions of

the state, it carries a lot of importance in the field of education. Lot

of students are interested in pursuing their studies in the said

prestigious institution. Moreover, the usual admission process of

the students takes place in the month of July, and the academic

session commences in the month of August. At this crucial

juncture, a premier educational institution of the state is

functioning without an administrative head. Nothing was brought

Page 17 of 19

on record to satisfy this Court that the process has commenced to

appoint a regular principal of the college. It has already been

observed by this Court that despite the recommendation in April

2026, the Opposite Parties sat over the matter and, for the first

time in their instruction, they are raising a dispute with regard to

the seniority of the present Petitioner, even though the name of the

Petitioner has already been recommended by the outgoing

principal of the college on the basis of her seniority at Sl No.2 of

the letter dated 20.04.2026.

17. Taking into consideration the surrounding facts and

circumstances as well as the inaction on the part of the State-

Opposite Parties to appoint a regular principal, this Court has

enough reason to draw an inference that the state machinery is not

interested in appointing the Petitioner as the Principal-in-Charge

of the college for reasons best known to them. Moreover, the

Petitioner being the second senior-most faculty after Smt.Jayanti

Behera, who had expressed her unwillingness, has a legitimate

expectation to reach the highest office of the institution where she

has been working. She also has the requisite qualification for

being considered for appointment to the post of Principal-in-

Charge. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is of the

Page 18 of 19

considered view that the inaction of the Opposite Parties in

appointing the Petitioner as the Principal-in-Charge of the college

till appointment of the regular principal is highly illegal and

arbitrary.

18. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual position,

further taking note of the contentions raised by counsels appearing

for both sides and the instruction received from the Higher

Education Department vide letter dated 20.07.2026, this Court is

of the view that the Petitioner, who happens to be a lady faculty

member of the BJB Autonomous College, has been discriminated

against by the government. As such, the Opposite Parties have

violated the principle enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of

India. Moreover, Dr.Kanhu Charan Padhy, whose name appears at

Sl No.3 of the letter dated 20.04.2026, having not challenged the

seniority of the present Petitioner, this Court presumes that the

present Petitioner is the second senior-most teaching faculty

member, especially after the expression of unwillingness by the

senior-most teaching faculty member, who is the most suitable and

eligible person to be appointed as the Principal-in-Charge of the

BJB Autonomous College, Bhubaneswar. In such view of the

matter, this Court, in the larger public interest, directs the Opposite

Page 19 of 19

Party No.1 to immediately appoint the Petitioner as the Principal-

in-Charge of the BJB Autonomous College, Bhubaneswar, with a

further direction to the Petitioner to take over charge immediately.

The Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to issue the appointment

letter within a week from the date of production of a copy of

today’s order by the Petitioner. However, it is further made clear

that such appointment of the Petitioner as Principal-in-Charge

shall be in force till appointment of a regular principal of the

abovenamed college.

19. Accordingly, the writ application stands allowed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(A.K. Mohapatra)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack

The 23

rd

July, 2026/ Anil/ Jr. Steno