As per case facts, the appellants, who were originally opposite parties in a Writ Petition, challenged a Single Judge's judgment that allowed the writ petition filed by Debasish Nayak. Nayak, ...
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 1 of 116
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.A. Nos.440, 468, 441, 446, 488, 489,
493, 536, 605, 606, 1210, 1211, 1213, 1214 of 2026
and
D-W.A. No.39849 of 2026
In the matter of an Appeal under Article 4 of
the Orissa High Court Order, 1948
read with
Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting
the High Court of Judicature at Patna
and
Rule 6 of Chapter-III and Rule 2 of Chapter-VIII
of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948
***
W.A. No.440 of 2026
(CNR No. ODHC01-016261-2026):
1. Sailesh Das
Aged about 46 years
Son of Niranjan Das
Resident of At: Biju Nagar, P.O.: Industrial Estate
Jharsuguda, District: Jharsuguda
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer
UIRC, Sub-Division No.1, Mukhiguda
District: Keojhar.
2. Manas Kumar Behera
Aged about 45 years
Son of Mangaraj Behera
Resident of
At/P.O.: Nuapatna, Tigiria
District: Cuttack
Presently working as
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 2 of 116
Assistant Executive Engineer
In the Office of Chief Engineer
Prachi Division, Bhubaneswar
District: Khurda
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar.
3. Jagatri Sethy @ Barik
Aged about 42 years
Son of Bishnu Chandra Sethy
At: Santipur, P.O.: Kantigadia
Barchana, District: Jajpur
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer
In the Office of Chief Engineer HRD
T & CD, Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
4. Kadambini Bhoi
Aged about 43 years
Wife of Bikash Kumar Bhoi
Resident of At/P.O.: Khandeita
District: Cuttack
At present working as
Assistant Executive, Central Irrigation Circle
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha. … Appellants
(Opposite party
Nos.6 to 9 in
the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.19884
of 2025).
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha
Represented through
Principal Secretary to Government
In Water Resources Department
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 3 of 116
2. Special Secretary to Government
General Administration and
Public Grievance Department
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
3. Principal Secretary to Government
ST & SC Development, Minorities and
Backward Classes Welfare Department
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
4. Engineer-in-Chief
Water Resources, Odisha
Bhubaneswar
At/P.O./P.S.: Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
5. Debasish Nayak
Aged about 48 years
Son of Late Krushna Chandra Nayak
At: Sikharpur Uppersahi
P.O.: College Square, P.S.: Chauliaganj
District: Cuttack
Working at present as
Assistant Engineer (Civil)
Under Office of Superintending Engineer
Rengali Right Canal Division No.7,
Chandikhol, Jajpur.
6. Chhatrapati Magar
At/P.O.: Panchapara
District: Jharsuguda
Presently working as
Assistant Engineer
In the Office of
Chief Engineer & Basin Manger
Lower Suktel Rroject
AT/P.O./District: Balangir.
7. Ashok Kumar Das
At/P.O.: Ranipatna
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 4 of 116
District: Balasore
Presently working as
Assistant Engineer
In the Office of
Chief Engineer & Basin Manger
Subamarekha & Budhabalanga Basin
At/P.O./District: Baleshwar. … Respondents.
(Respondent Nos.1 to 4
were the Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 4;
Respondent No.5
was the petitioner and
Respondent Nos.6 and 7
were the Opposite Party
Nos.5 and 10 respectively
the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.19884
of 2025).
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellant : Mr. Surya Prasad Mishra,
Senior Advocate
Assisted by
M/s. Soumya Mishra,
G.N. Parida, Sakshi Rout,
R.K. Agrawal, Saswat Mohanty
Biswajit Sahoo, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Saswat Das,
Additional Government Advocate
For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Biswabihari Mohanty, Advocate
For the Intervenors : Dr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Advocate
W.A. No.468 of 2026
(CNR No. ODHC01-016524-2026):
1. Gobinda Chandra Mallick
Aged about 55 years
Son of Late Narotam Mallick
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 5 of 116
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer, R.W.S & S and
Section Niali at
PO/P.S.: Niali, District: Kataka.
2. Manoj Behera,
Aged about 53 years
Son of Baishnav Charan Behera
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer, RWS and S
Section Dasrathapur
At/PO/P.S: Dasrathpur
District: Jajpur. … Appellants
(Opposite party
Nos.5 and 6 in
the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.9643
of 2025).
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha
Represented through
Principal Secretary to Government
of Housing and Urban Department
At: Kharabela Bhawan near Power House Road
District: Khordha.
2. State of Odisha
Represented through
Principal Section SC and ST Development
Department Minority and Backward Classes
Welfare Department
Lok Seva Bhawan
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
3. Engineering in Chief
Public Health (Urban), Odisha
At: 1
st Floor, Unnati Bhawan
Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 6 of 116
4. Khirod Prasad Rout,
Aged about 46 years,
Son of Late Muralidhar Rout
At: Sitaleswar, Viaaul
District: Kendrapara
Presently working as Assistant Engineer
RWS and S Section Daringibadi
Under RWS and Division Phulbani.
5. Prasanta K Muduli,
Aged about 43 years
Son of Jaganath Muduli,
At/PO: Alipingal, P.S.: Nimapada,
District: Puri,
Working at present as
Assistant Engineer, GPH Section, Puri
Under GPH Division-1,
Bhubaneswar.
6. Trithabasi Pradhan
Aged about 44 years
Son of Raj Kishore Pradhan
At: Kulasahi, P.O.: Taradapada
P.S.: Jagatsinghpur
Presently working as Assistant Engineer
RWS and S Section Phiringia
Under RWS and Divisional Phulbani.
7. Himanshu Sekhar Parida
Aged about 46 years
Son of Hari Parida, Majhi Sahi
At/P.O./P.S.: Banarpal, District: Angul
Presently working as Assistant Manager (Estimator)
WATCO Division, Keonjhar.
8. Prabhat Kumar Panda
Aged about 46 years
Son of Gopinath Panda
At: Kalasnadhapur, Via: Aska
District: Ganjam
Presently working as Assistant Project Engineer
OWSSB, Unnati Bhawan, Satya Nagar
Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 7 of 116
9. Bibhuti Kumar Kissan
Presently working as RWS and S Section
At/PO: Thuamul, Rampur,
District: Kalahandi.
10. Mangal Singh
Presently working as Assistant Manager
WATCO Section
At/PO: Dhancipalei
District: Sambalpur.
11. Sasibhusan Naik
At/P.O.: Panchapara
Presently working as Assistant Engineer
RWS and S Section,
At/PO: Chitrakonda,
District: Malkangiri. … Respondents.
(Respondent Nos.9 to 11
were the Opposite Party
Nos.4, 7 and 8;
respectively
the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.9643
of 2025).
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellants : Mr. Asok Mohanty,
Senior Advocate
Assisted by
M/s. Lopamudra Pradhan,
Soumya Subha Darshini Mohanty,
Advocates
For the Respondent Mr. Saswat Das
Nos.1 to 3 : Additional Government Advocate
For the Respondent Mr. Budhadev Routray,
Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 : Senior Advocate
assisted by
Mr. Jagdish Biswal, Advocate
For the Respondent No.7 : Mr. Gautam Misra,
Senior Advocate
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 8 of 116
assisted by
Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Deo, Advocate
W.A. No.441 of 2026
(CNR No. ODHC01-019298-2026):
1. Sujata Samal
Aged about 42 years
Daughter of Gangadhar Samal
Resident At: Azimabad, PO: Shyamsundarpur
District: Balasore
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer
PH Section-IV
District: Balasore.
2. Prasad Kumar Samantray,
Aged about 50 years
Son of Kartik Chandra Behera
Resident of
At.: Biswali, PO: Bhutmundai
District: Jagatsinghpur-754141
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer
RWS and S Wing under
PR & DW Department.
3. Dharmendra Sethi,
Aged about 49 years
Care of Kameswar Sethi
Residing at
P.O.: Guhaldangri, Via: Gorumohisiani,
District: Mayurbhanj,
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer
RWS and S Wing under
PR and DW Department.
4. Namita Behera
Aged about 43 years
Daughter of Sanyasi Behera,
Resident of At: Padmini Vihar,
Phase-7, P.O.:Kotasahi,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 9 of 116
Tangi-754022, District: Kataka
At present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer, RWS and S Wing
under PR & DW Department.
5. Sanghamitra Priyadarshini,
Aged about 43 years
Daughter of Khirod Kumar Majhi
At: Basant Colony, Qr. No.BE-46,
Uditnagar, Rourkela,
District: Sundargarh,
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer
RWS and S Wing under
PR and DW Department.
6. Suresh Chandra Kishan,
Aged about 43 years
Son of Daya Kisan,
At/PO: Jharsuguda, Unit-III,
Debadihi near Sidhanshnagar L.N. College,
District: Jharsuguda-768202,
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer
RWS and S Wing under
PR and DW Department … Appellants
(Opposite party
Nos.8, 4 to 7 and 12
in the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.18965
of 2025).
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha
Represented through
Principal Secretary to Government
of Housing and Urban Development Department
At: Lok Seva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
2. State of Odisha
Represented through
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 10 of 116
Principal Secretary, ST & SC Development
Minorities and Backward Classes
Welfare Department,
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
3. Engineering-in-Chief
Public Health (Urban), Odisha
At: 1
st Floor, Unnati Bhawan
Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
4. Pradipta Chandra Deo,
Aged about 59 years,
Son of Late Krupasindhu Binabana Deo,
Presently working as Assistant Engineer
RWS and S Section Mahanga,
RWS and S Division, Kataka, Kataka-4.
5. Snigdha Satpathy,
Aged about 45 years
Care of Pramodbihari Pati,
Presently working as
Assistant Engineer, Estimator
RWS and S Division,
Kataka-4.
6. Elliza Mallik
Aged about 43 years
Care of Late Braja Kishore Mallick
Presently working as Assistant Engineer
RWS and S Division, Section Kataka Sadar
Mahanadi Vihar, Kataka-4.
7. Susmita Tripathy (B)
Aged about 45 years
Wife of Arun Kumar Mallik
Presently working as Assistant Engineer
RWS and S Circle, Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
8. Supriya Samantaray
Aged about 45 years
Wife of Arun Kumar Mallik
Presently working as Assistant Engineer
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 11 of 116
RWS and S Circle
Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
9. Nalini Satpathy
Aged about 42 years
Care of Nanda Kishore Dash
At/PO: Jhargaon, Via: Zincnajar Najar
District: Sundargarh
Presently working as Assistant Engineer
Estimator, RWS and S Division
District: Sundargarh.
10. Subir Kumar Maity
Aged about 52 years
Care of Late Haragobinda Maity
At/PO: Bhanjapur, Baripada
District: Mayurbhanj.
11. Subhashree Behera
Aged about 43 years
At present working as
Assistant Engineer, RWS and S Division
Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
12. Menaka Panigrahi
Aged about 51 years
At present working as
Assistant Engineer
Office of the EIC, RWS and S, Odisha
Jal „O‟ Panimala Bhawan
Unit-5, Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
13. Gayatri Tripathy
Aged about 46 years
Assistant Engineer
Office of Additional Chief Engineer
P.H. Circle, Bhubaneswar
Unit-5, Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
14. Himanshu Sekhar Sa
Care of Rohit Sa
At: Badheimunda, PO: Kalimandir Road,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 12 of 116
Jharsuguda,
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
RWS and S Wing under PR and DW Department.
15. Robort Pradhan,
Son of Bisti Pradhan,
At: Kandapa, PO: Daringbadi,
District: Kandhamal,
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
RWS and S Wing under PR and DW Department.
16. Bijaya Atti,
Son of Daya Kisan,
At/PO: Sudang, District: Jharsuguda,
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
RWS and S Wing
Under PR and DW Department.
17. Ganeswar Singh,
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
RWS and S Wing
Under PR & DW Department.
18. Narayan Sethi,
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
RWS and S Wing
Under PR and DW Department.
19. Ram Chandra Hansda,
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
RWS and S Wing
Under PR & DW Department.
20. Hilarus Tirkey,
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
RWS and S Wing
Under PR & DW Department.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 13 of 116
21. Udayanath Hembram,
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
RWS and S Wing
Under PR & DW Department.
22. Deepak Kumar Pradhan,
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
RWS and S Wing
Under PR & DW Department.
23. Romancha Kishan,
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
RWS and S Wing
Under PR & DW Department.
24. Sujit Kumar Patra,
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
RWS and S Wing
Under PR and DW Department.
25. Pitha Soren,
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
RWS and S Wing
Under PR & DW Department.
26. Karan Soren,
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
RWS and S Wing under
PR and DW Department. … Respondents.
(Respondent Nos.1 to 3
were the Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 3;
Respondent Nos.4 to 13
were the petitioner nos.1 to 10 and
Respondent Nos.14 to 16
were the Opposite Party
Nos.9 to 11 and respondent
Nos.17 to 26 were the
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 14 of 116
opposite party Nos.13 to 22
respectively the Writ
Petition (Civil) No.18965
of 2025) .
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellants : Mr. Gautam Mukherji,
Senior Advocate
assisted by
Mr. Aditya Pati, Advocate
For the Respondent Mr. Saswat Das,
Nos.1 to 3 : Additional Government Advocate
For the Respondent Mr. Budhadev Routray,
Nos.5, 6, 10 and 11 : Senior Advocate
assisted by
Mr. Jagdish Biswal, Advocate
W.A. No.446 of 2026
(CNR No. ODHC01-016470-2026):
1. Anil Bag,
Aged about 37 years,
Son of Bipin Bag,
At/P.O.: Katapali, P.S.: Bargarh,
Presently working as
Revenue Inspector
Under Tahasil: Bijepur, District: Bargarh.
2. Haripriya Badi,
Aged about 41 years,
Daughter of Daitari Badi,
At/P.O: Bishi Pada (Ward No. 7),
P.S.: Bargarh,
Presently working as
Revenue Inspector under Tahasil: Barpali,
District: Bargarh.
3. Thakit Kumar Naik,
Aged about 41 years,
Son of Kshetra Mani Naik,
At/P.O.: Sahaspur, P.S.: Laikera,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 15 of 116
Presently working as Revenue Inspector
Under Tahasil: Paikmal,
District: Jharsuguda.
4. Sasmita Rani Kanta,
Aged about 39 years,
Daughter of Arjun Lal Kanta,
At/Po:Tora Adarsha Pada, PS: Bargarh,
Presently working as Revenue Inspector
Under Tahasil: Barpali,
District: Bargarh.
5. Madhuri Naik,
Aged about 36 years,
Wife of Lalit Naik,
At: Bhalukona, Po: Siallati, PS: Komna,
Presently working as Revenue Inspector
Under Tahasil: Paikmal,
District: Nuapada.
6. Sanjaya Bhoi,
Aged about 52 years,
Son of Bhikhari Chandra Bhoi,
At/Po: Kulunda, PS:Attabira,
Presently working as Revenue Inspector
Under Tahasil: Sohela,
District: Bargarh.
7. Reetesh Bhue,
Aged about 32 years,
Son of Keshaba Bhue,
At: Belbahali, PO: Routpada, PS: Bhatli,
Presently working as Revenue Inspector
Under Tahasil: Bhatli,
District: Bargarh.
8. Himanshu Sekhar Bishi,
Aged about 34 years,
Son of Premananda Bishi,
At: Sativata, Po: Purena, PS: Padampur,
Presently working as Revenue Inspector
Under Tahasil: Paikmal,
District: Bargarh.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 16 of 116
9. Chandra Sekhar Kisan,
Aged about 37 years,
Son of Rameswar Kishan,
At: Goibahali, Po: Palsada, PS: Paikmal,
Presently working as Revenue Inspector
Under Tahasil: Bheden,
District: Bargarh.
10. Manjulata Paik,
Aged about 38 years,
Wife of Manoranjan Luha,
At: Debahal, Po: Janhapada, PS: Attabira,
Presently working as Revenue Inspector
Under Tahasil: Bargarh,
District: Bargarh.
11. Nilima Nag,
Aged about 40 years,
Daughter of Jonathan Nag,
At/Po: Tora, PS: Bargarh,
Presently working as Revenue Inspector
Under Tahasil: Attabira,
District: Bargarh.
12. Debasish Mahananda,
Aged about 41 years,
Son of Bendal Mahananda,
At: Kendamundi, Po: Rengali,
PS: Sohela,
Presently working as Revenue Inspector
Under Tahasil: Bheden,
District: Bargarh.
13. Sunil Kumar Nag,
Aged about 37 years,
Son of Jhasketan Nag,
At: Laxmipada, Po: Tora, PS: Bargarh,
Presently working as Revenue Inspector
Under Tahasil: Amabhona,
District: Bargarh.
14. Bibekananda Nag,
Aged about 45 years,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 17 of 116
Son of Gobardhan Nag,
At/Po: Bishi Pada (Ward No. 7),
PS: Bargarh,
Presently working as Revenue Inspector
Under Tahasil: Attabira,
District: Bargarh.
15. Prasanna Kumar Badi,
Aged about 40 years,
Son of Pyarimohan Badi,
At: Amastala, Po: Larambha,
PS: Attabira,
Presently working as Revenue Inspector
Under Tahasil: Bargarh,
District: Bargarh.
16. Bedanta Bhue,
Aged about 32 years,
Son of Jadumani Bhue,
At: Beherapali, Po: Hatisar, PS: Bhatli,
Presently working as Revenue Inspector
Under Tahasil: Bheden,
District: Bargarh.
17. Bharati Meher,
Aged about 39 years,
Wife of Suresh Meher,
At/Po: Bargarh, PS: Bargarh,
Presently working as Revenue Inspector
Under Tahasil: Attabira,
District: Bargarh. … Appellants
(Opposite party
Nos.6 to 16 and 18
to 23 in
the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.13600
of 2025).
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha,
Represented through its Additional
Chief Secretary to Govt. of Odisha, Revenue and
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 18 of 116
Disaster Management Department,
Lok Seva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
2. State of Odisha,
represented through its Secretary,
ST & SC Development,
Minorities & Backward
Classes Welfare Department,
Lok Seva Bhawan (Odisha Secretariat)
Bhubaneswar- 751001.
3. State of Odisha,
represented through its Principal
Secretary, Department of Law,
Law Department, Lok Seva Bhawan,
Sachivalaya Marg, Bhubaneswar,
Odisha 751001.
4. The Collector & District Magistrate,
Bargarh, At/P.O/District: Bargarh.
5. Additional District Magistrate,
Bargarh, At/PO/District: Bargarh.
6. Shikharani Sarangi,
Aged about 34 years,
Daughter of Narayan Sarangi,
At- Khaliapli, District: Bargarh,
Presently working as Amin under
Barpali Tahasil.
7. Bimal Padhan,
aged about 35 years,
Son of Purnachandra Pradhan,
At: Muralipali Basti, Charpali,
P.S: Rengali, Jharsuguda,
Presently working as Amin under
The Tahasil of Attabira, Bargarh.
8. Sumit Kumar Raven,
Aged about 37,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 19 of 116
Son of Sudhir Kumar Raven,
Katakiapada, Bargarh, P.O.: Bargarh,
District: Bargarh, 768028,
Presently working as Amin
Under the Tahasil of Attabira, Bargarh.
9. Rojeswari Sahu,
Aged about 35 years,
Daughter of Sushil Kumar Sahu,
Presently working as
Assistant Revenue Inspector under
The Bheden Tahasil.
10. Prabhat Ranjan Sahu,
aged about 40 years,
Son of Duguru Sahu,
Talmenda, Bheden,
Bargarh, 768103,
Presently working as
Assistant Revenue Inspector
under the Tahasil of Attabira,
Bargarh.
11. Golak Bihari Mallik,
At: Canalpada, Shaktinagar,
Post/District: Bargarh,
Presently working as Revenue Inspector
Under Tahasil Office Attabira. … Respondents.
(Respondent Nos.1 to 5
were the Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 5;
Respondent Nos.6 to 10
were the petitioner nos.1 to
5 and Respondent No.11
was opposite party no.17
the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.13600
of 2025) .
Counsel appeared for the parties:
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 20 of 116
For the Appellants : Mr. Gautam Mukherji,
Senior Advocate
assisted by
Mr. Aditya Pati, Advocate
For the Respondent Mr. Saswat Das,
Nos.1 to 5 : Additional Government Advocate
For the Respondent Mr. Subir Palit, Senior Advocate
Nos.6 to 10 : assisted by
Ms. Ananya Pradhan, Advocate
For the Intervenor : Mr. Rajib Rath, Advocate
W.A. No.488 of 2026
(CNR No. ODHC01-020334-2026):
1. Sri Janardan Majhi,
Aged about 58 years,
Son of late Bhagirathi Majhi,
At present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil),
In charge of Executive Engineer,
Head office,
Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation,
Near Union Bank,
At:Nayapalli, Plot No:N-17/2,
Po:Nayapalli, Bhubaneswer,
District: Khurda, Pin: 751012.
(Opp. No.3 in the
writ petition)
2. Dilip Sahoo,
Aged about 58 years,
Son of late Kanduri Charan Sahoo,
At preset working as
Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil)
Office of the Executive Engineer
Lift Irrigation Division, Cuttack,
At: Pratap Nagari,
PO: Telenga Pentha,
District: Cuttack, Pin: 754001.
3. Yudhistira Mahalik,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 21 of 116
Aged about 58 years,
Son of late Trilochan Mahalik,
At present working as
Executive Engineer,
Lift Irrigation Division,
Jaipur Road,
At/PO: Dala, District: Jajpur,
Pin: 755019.
4. Seshadev Mahalik,
Aged about 58 years,
Son of Shyama Sundar Mahalik,
At present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil),
Office of the Executive Engineer,
Lift Irrigation Division,
Jajpur Road,
At/Po: Dala, Jajpur Road,
District: Jajpur, Pin:755019.
5. Nimain Charan Sethi,
Aged about 58 years,
Son of Uttam Charan Sethi,
At Present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil),
Office of the Executive Engineer,
Lift Irrigation Division, Kendrapara,
At/Po: Tinimuhani,
District: Kendrapara, Pin: 754211.
6. Bimbadhar Behera,
Aged about 58 years,
Son of Late Bhikari Behera,
At present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil),
Lift Irrigation Division, Berhampur,
At/Po: Berhampur, (1
st Gate),
District: Ganjam, Pin:76004.
7. Mohan Behera,
Aged about 58 years,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 22 of 116
Son of Late Yudhistira Behera,
At present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil),
Office of the Assistant Executive
Engineer, Lift Irrigation,
Sub-Division: Rayagada,
At/Po: Rayagada, District:Rayagada,
Pin: 765001.
8. Sukdev Bhoi,
Aged about 57 years,
Son of Late Uttam Bhoi,
At present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer, (Civil)
Office of the Executive Engineer,
Lift Irrigation Division, Baripada,
At/Po:Baripada,
District:Mayurbhanj, Pin-757002.
9. Ranjan Kumar Majhi,
Aged about 57 years,
Son of Mahendra Majhi,
At present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer, (Civil)
Office of the Executive Engineer,
Lift Irrigation Division, Bhubaneswar,
Near Power House Square,
Bhubaneswar, Pin:751012.
10. Kishore Chandra Mahalik,
Aged about 58 years,
Son of Late Gadadhar Mahalik,
At present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer, (Civil)
Office of the Executive Engineer,
Lift Irrigation Division, Baragada,
Near Collectoriat Office,
Baragada Word No-9,
District: Baragada, Pin -768028.
11. Srikanta Rout,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 23 of 116
Aged about 58 years,
Son of Sri Bhaskar Sethi,
At present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer, (Civil)
Office of the Executive Engineer,
Lift Irrigation Division, Baragada,
Near Collectoriate Office,
Baragada Word No-9,
District: Baragada, Pin-768028.
12. Budhurai Sange Shamad,
Aged about 53 years,
Son of Late Laxman Sange Shamad,
At present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer, (Civil)
Office of the Executive Engineer,
Lift Irrigation Division, Keonjhar,
At/Po: Dhurpada,
District:Keonjhar,
Pin:758013. … Appellants
-VERSUS-
1. Sri Ajay Kumar Mohakud,
Aged about 59 years,
Son of Daksheswar Mohakud,
At present working as
Executive Engineer (I/C) (Civil),
Lift Irrigation Division, Berhampur,
District: Ganjam.
(Petitioner in W.P.
(C) No.5921 of 2026)
2. State of Odisha,
Represented through its
Principal Secretary Department of
Water Resources Department,
Govt. of Odisha,
At: Lokaseva Bhavan, Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 24 of 116
3. Managing Director of
Odisha lift irrigation Corporation LTD,
A Govt. of Odisha
Under taking Plot No-17/2 Nayapalli,
Bhubaneswar-12,
District: Khordha.
4. Principal Secretary to Govt.,
SC & ST Development
Department Minority and Backward
Classes Welfare Department,
Lok seva bhawan,
At/Post: Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha. … Respondents
5. Sri Balaram Naik,
At present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer
in OLIC L.T.D Berhampur,
District: Ganjam. … Proforma Respondents
. (Opposite party No.4 in
the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.5921 of
2026).
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellants : Mr. Asok Mohanty,
Senior Advocate
Assisted by
M/s. Lopamudra Pradhan,
Soumya Subha Darshini Mohanty,
Advocates
For the Respondent
Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. Saswat Das
Additional Government Advocate
W.A. No.489 of 2026
(CNR No. ODHC01-016503-2026):
1. Pabitra Kumar Sahoo,
Aged about 53 years,
Son of late Panchanan Sahoo,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 25 of 116
At: Srichandanpur,
Po:Banki, District: Cuttack,
PIN: 754008,
At present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
UILC Sub Division No.1
Dharmagarh under UI Left
Canel Division No-II,
Dharmagarh.
2. Debendra Sahoo,
Aged about 50 years,
Son of Balaram Sahoo,
At/Po: Alati, PS: Ramachandrapur,
District: Keonjhar,
At present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
Quality Control & Designs Division,
KIP, Basudevpur,
District: Keonjhar,
Pin:758043.
3. Jogendra Singh.
Aged about 52 years,
At: Nuasahi, PO: Sirathali,
puruna Baripada,
District: Mayurbhanj,
At present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
LC-Sub-Division No-iii,
Barapada under
LCD No.VII-Barapada,
District: Bhadrak.
4. Bijla Ekka,
Aged about 47 years,
At: Badanuagaon,
PO: Kansbahal, District: Sundargarh,
Present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer
CE and BM TEL Basin,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 26 of 116
Bhawanipatna, Boudh Irrigation
Sub-Division, Boudh under
Boudh Irrigation Division, Boudh. … Appellants
(Opposite party
Nos.6, 7, 9 and 10
in the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.19512
of 2025).
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha Government,
Represented through
Principal Secretary to Government
Lok Seva Bhawan
In Water Resources Department
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
2. Special Secretary to Government
General Administration and
Public Grievance Department
Lok Seva Bhawan
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
3. Principal Secretary to Government
ST & SC Development, Minorities and
Backward Classes Welfare Department
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
4. Engineer-in-Chief
Water Resources, Odisha
Bhubaneswar, Secha Sadan,
At/P.O./P.S.: Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
5. Manasi Das,
Aged about 45 years
Wife of Brajabandhu Jena,
At: Plot No.630, Mahanadi Vihar,
P.O.: Nuabazar, P.S.: Chauliaganj
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 27 of 116
District: Cuttack
Working at present as
Assistant Engineer (Civil)
Under Office of Superintending Engineer
Mahanadi Barrage Division,
Gandarpur, Kataka. … Respondents
6. Ashok Kumar Das,
CCE and BM Subarnarekha and
Bhudhabalanga Basin
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer
Sunei Irrigation Sub-Division,
Udala under Mayurbhanj
Irrigation Division, Baripada,
District: Mayurbhanj.
7. Subash Chandra Naik,
At: Khandia, PO: Kantapal,
CCE ABP Salapada,
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer
Kalo Irrigation Sub Division,
Chuinposi under Mayurbhanj
Irrigation Division, Baripada
District: Mayurbhanj. … Proforma Respondents.
(Respondent Nos.6 and 7
were the Opposite Party
Nos.5 and 8
the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.19512
of 2025).
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellants : Mr. Asok Mohanty,
Senior Advocate
Assisted by
M/s. Lopamudra Pradhan,
Soumya Subha Darshini Mohanty,
Advocates
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 28 of 116
For the Respondent Mr. Saswat Das
Nos.1 to 4 : Additional Government Advocate
For the Respondent Mr. Biswabihari Mohanty,
No.5 : Advocate
W.A. No.493 of 2026
(CNR No. ODHC01-016107-2026):
1. Ashok Kumar Balabantaray,
Aged about 47 years,
Son of late Muralidhar Sethy,
resident of Village: Nahakpada,
PO: Daspalla, District: Nayagarh,
at present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
Mahanadi Barrage Gandarpur,
Cuttack- 753003,
District:Kataka
2. Pradeep Kumar Naik,
Aged about 48 years,
Son of Krushna Chandra Naik,
resident of Village/P.O.: Dhalpur,
District: Dhenkanal,
At present working as
Asst. Executive Engineer,
M.I Sub- Division, Kamakhyanagar,
At/PO- Kamakhyanagar,
District:Dhenkanal.
3. Tankadhar Behera,
Aged about 50 years ,
Son of Rama Chandra Behera,
resident of Kamakhyanagar
NAG Ward No.6, District: Dhenkanal,
At present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
Rengali Right Irrigation Project,
Dhenkanal Division No-2,
Dhenkanal,
District: Dhenkanal.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 29 of 116
4. Bijala Ekka,
Aged about 46 year,
Son of Sukru Ekka,
At present working as
Assistant Executive Engineer,
Boudh Irrigation Sub-Division,
At/Post/District: Boudh. … Appellants
(Opposite party
Nos.6, 7, 8 and 10
in the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.19487
of 2025).
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha,
Represented through
Principal Secretary to Government
In Water Resources Department
Loka Seva Bhawan, Sachivalaya Marg,
Bhubaneswar-751001,
District: Khordha.
2. Special Secretary to Government
General Administration and
Public Grievance Department
Loka Seva Bhawan, Sachivalaya Marg,
Bhubaneswar, 751001,
District: Khordha.
3. Principal Secretary to Government
ST & SC Development, Minorities and
Backward Classes Welfare Department
Loka Seva Bhawan, Sachivalaya Marg,
Bhubaneswar, 751001
District: Khordha.
4. Engineer-in-Chief
Water Resources, Odisha
Bhubaneswar, Rajib Bhawan,
Keshari Nagar,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 30 of 116
Bhubaneswar, 751001
District: Khordha.
5. Mrutunjay Panda,
Aged about 58 years
Son of Late Sankarshan Panda,
At: Naranpur, PO: Belagachia
PS: Baranaga, District:Kataka
Working at present as
Assistant Engineer (Civil)
Under Office of Superintending Engineer
Rengali Right Canal Division No.4,
At/PO: Badamba,
District: Kataka. … Respondents
(Respondent nos.1 to
4 were the opposite
party nos.1 to 4 and
respondent No.5 was
the petitioner
respectively in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.
19487 of 2025)
6. Ashok Kumar Das,
At/PO: Rani Patana, Balasore
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer
Sunei Irrigation Sub-Division,
Udala under Mayurbhanj
Irrigation Division, Baripada,
District: Mayurbhanj.
7. Lambodar Majhi,
At/PO: Kermei, Post: Kantapala,
District: Mayurbhanj,
Presently working as
Assistant Executive Engineer
Megalift Sub Division,
Kesinga under Megalift Project
Division, Bhawani Patna,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 31 of 116
District: Kalahandi. … Proforma Respondents.
(Respondent Nos.6 and 7
were the Opposite Party
Nos.5 and 9
the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.19487
of 2025).
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellants : Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath,
Senior Advocate
Assisted by
Ms. Sagarika Sahoo, Advocate
For the Respondent
Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. Saswat Das
Additional Government Advocate
For the Respondent Mr. Bhabani Sankar Tripathy,
No.5 : Senior Advocate
assisted by
Mr. Biswabihari Mohanty,
Advocate
W.A. No.536 of 2026
(CNR No. ODHC01-017260-2026):
1. Rajesh Kumar Khadia,
Aged about 31 years,
Assistant Section Officer,
School & Mass Education Department,
Government of Odisha,
State Secretariat, Bhubaneswar.
2. Gayatri Murmu,
working as
Assistant Section Officer,
GA & PG Department,
Government of Odisha,
State Secretariat, Bhubaneswar. … Appellants
(Opposite party
Nos.7 and 9 in
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 32 of 116
the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.11039
of 2025).
-VERSUS-
1. Alok Maharana,
Aged about 32 years,
Son of Abhimanyu Maharana,
Residing at Qtr. No. E-146, Unit-8,
Bhubaneswar-751012.
2. Mousam Mohanty,
Aged about 32 years,
Son of Pramod Kishore Mohanty,
Residing at Qtr. No. 2RAF-8/7, Unit-9,
Bhubaneswar.
3. Sansad Sahu,
Aged about 31 years,
Son of Ananda Sahu,
Residing at P.O.:Mulbar,
P.S. Bhatli,
District: Bargarh-768030.
4. Baishalini Samal,
Aged about 29 years
Daughter of Kishore Kumar Samal,
Residing at Qtr. No. E-13/3,
IRC Village, Bhubaneswar, 751015.
5. State of Odisha,
Represented through the
Addl. Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Department, Government of Odisha,
State Secretariat, Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
6. State of Odisha,
Represented through the
Addl. Chief Secretary to
Government, Department of General
Administration & Public Grievance,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 33 of 116
Government of Odisha, State
Secretariat, Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
7. State of Odisha,
Represented through the
Principal Secretary to Government,
ST & SC Development, Minorities &
Backward Classes Welfare
Department, Government of Odisha,
State Secretariat, Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
8. Bhagmat Majhi,
Working as Assistant Section Officer,
Handlooms Textiles &
Handicrafts Department,
Government of Odisha,
State Secretariat,
Bhubaneswar.
9. Ramesh Chandra Munda,
Working as Assistant Section Officer,
Handlooms Textiles & Handicrafts
Department, Government of Odisha,
State Secretariat, Bhubaneswar.
10. Monali Pradhan,
Working as Assistant
Section Officer, Women & Child
Development Department, Government
of Odisha, State Secretariat,
Bhubaneswar.
11. Shankarshan Murmu,
working as
Assistant Section Officer,
GA & PG (Lokayukta) Department,
Government of Odisha,
State Secretariat,
Bhubaneswar.
12. Priyadarsani Suchismita Jena,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 34 of 116
Working as Assistant Section Officer,
Odisha Language, Literature, & Culture
Department, Government of Odisha,
State Secretariat,
Bhubaneswar. … Respondents.
(Respondent Nos.1 to 4
were the petitioner
Nos.1 to 4;
respectively
the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.11039
of 2025).
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellants : Ms. Anindita Pujari,
Senior Advocate
Assisted by
M/s. Arpit Sarangi,
Shaileshwar Yadav,
and Ananya Ankita Dash, Advocates
For the Respondent M/s. Tarun Patnaik,
Nos.1 to 4 : Arnav Behera, Advocates
For the Respondent Mr. Saswat Das
Nos.5 to 7 : Additional Government Advocate
W.A. No.605 of 2026
(CNR No. ODHC01-021408-2026):
Dr. Rupali Tandi,
Aged about 35 years,
Daughter of Trinath Tandi,
Presently working as Senior Ayurvedic
Medical Officer (AMO),
Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary (GAD),
Gotamunda (under District Ayurvedic
Medical Officer),
Bhawanipatna Circle, Kalahandi,
At: Chheliapada, P.O./P.S.-Khariar,
District: Nuapada,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 35 of 116
PIN: 766107. … Appellant
(Opposite party
No.10 in
the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.22656
of 2025).
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha,
Represented through its Principal
Secretary to Govt. of Odisha,
Health & Family Welfare Department,
Lok Seva Bhawan, Sachivalaya
Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
2. Principal Secretary to Govt. of Odisha,
ST & SC Development,
Minorities and Backward Classes
Welfare Department, Lok Seva Bhawan,
Sachivalaya Marg, Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
3. Director,
AYUSH, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar,
At/P.O.:Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
4. Secretary,
Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC),
Cuttack, At- Cantonment Road,
P.O.- Buxi Bazar,
City/District:Kataka.
5. District Ayurvedic Medical Officer,
Bhawanipatna Circle,
At/P.O.-Bhawanipatna,
District: Kalahandi.
6. Narayan Mohanty,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 36 of 116
Aged about 36 years,
Son of Laxmidhar Mohanty,
At-Bhailipur, P.O.- Olla,
P.S: Chandanpur, District:Puri,
at present working as
Ayurvedic Medical Officer (AMO),
deployed at Gopabandhu Ayurvedic
Medical College, Puri,
At/P.O./Town/District: Puri.
7. Suchitra Sahoo,
Aged about 36 years,
Wife of Dr. Ashis Kumar Singour,
At/P.O./P.S.- Raghunathpur,
District: Jagatsinghpur,
at present working as
Ayurvedic Medical Officer (AMO),
Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary (GAD),
Saranga, District: Jagatsinghpur.
8. Dr. Jagyaseny Sahu,
Aged about 36 years,
Wife of Saroj Kumar Sahu,
At-Suryanagar, Ward No.6,
P.O./P.S.: Nuapada,
District: Nuapada, Pin: 766105,
at present working
Ayurvedic Medical Officer (AMO),
Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary (GAD),
Bhawanipatna Circle, Kalahandi,
District: Kalahandi. … Respondents.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellant : Mr. Adyasidhi Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent Mr. Saswat Das
Nos.1 to 5 : Additional Government Advocate
WA No.606 of 2026
(CNR No. ODHC01-023192-2026):
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 37 of 116
1. Bhagamat Majhi,
Aged about 37 years,
Son of Paran Majhi,
Residing at Qr. No. B-127 Sector 17,
Rourkela, Sundergarh,
Odisha – 769 009.
2. Ramesh Chandra Munda,
Aged about 35 years,
Son of Late Trilochan Munda,
Residing at Hatianasa, P.O. Chauthia,
Via: Karanjia, P.S. Champua,
Keonjhar, Odisha-758044. … Appellants
(Opposite party
Nos.4 and 5 in
the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.11039
of 2025).
-VERSUS-
1. Alok Maharana,
Aged about 32 years,
Son of Abhimanyu Maharana,
Residing at Qtr. No. E-146, Unit-8,
Bhubaneswar.
2. Mousam Mohanty,
Aged about 32 years,
Son of Pramod Mishore Mohanty,
residing at Qtr. No. 2RAF-8/7, Unit-9,
Bhubaneswar.
3. Sansad Sahu,
Aged about 31 years,
Son of Ananda Sahu,
Residing at P.O. Mulbar,
P.S. Bhatli, District: Bargarh.
4. Baishalini Samal,
Aged about 29 years,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 38 of 116
Daughter of Kishore Kumar Samal,
Residing at Qtr. No. E-13/3,
IRC Village, Bhubaneswar.
5. State of Odisha,
Represented through its
Additional Chief Secretary to
Govt. of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster
Management Department,
Lok Seva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
6. State of Odisha,
Represented through its
Secretary, ST & SC Development,
Minorities & Backward Classes
Welfare Department,
Lok Seba Bhawan (Odisha
Secretariat) Bhubaneswar- 751001.
7. State of Odisha,
Represented through its
Principal Secretary,
Department of Law, Law Department,
Lok Seva Bhawan, Sachivalaya Marg,
Bhubaneswar,
Odisha:751001. … Respondents.
(Respondent Nos.1 to 4
were the Petitioner
Nos.1 to 4;
Respondent Nos.5 to 7
were the Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 3 respectively
in the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.11039 of 2025).
8. Monali Pradhan,
Working as Assistant Section Officer,
Women & Child Development Department,
Government of Odisha,
State Secretariat, Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 39 of 116
9. Rajesh Kumar Khadia,
Working as Assistant Section Officer,
School & Mass Education Department,
Government of Odisha, State Secretariat,
Bhubaneswar, District:Khordha.
10. Shankarshan Murmu,
Working as Assistant Section Officer,
GA & PG (Lokayukta) Department,
Government of Odisha, State Secretariat,
Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
11. Priyadarsani Suchismita Jena,
Working as Assistant Section Officer,
Odisha Language, Literature &
Culture Department, Government of
Odisha, State Secretariat,
Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
12. Gayatri Murmu,
Working as Assistant Section Officer,
GA & PG Department,
Government of Odisha,
State Secretariat, Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha. … Proforma Respondents
(Opposite party Nos.6 to 10
in the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.11039
of 2025).
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellants : Mr. Gautam Mukherji,
Senior Advocate
Assisted by
Ms. Arusmita Acharya, Advocate
For the Respondent M/s. Tarun Patnaik, Arnav Behera,
Nos.1 to 4 : Advocates
For the Respondent Mr. Saswat Das
Nos.5 to 7 : Additional Government Advocate
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 40 of 116
W.A. No.1210 of 2026
(CNR No. ODHC01-067371-2026):
1. Kulamani Behera,
Aged about 46 years,
Son of Natabar Behera,
Presently working as
Multi Purpose Health Worker
(Male, Level-1), Patkura CHC,
Korua Sub-Centre,
District: Kendrapada.
2. Binod Bihari Sahoo,
Aged about 44 years,
Son of Biswanath Sahoo,
Presently working as DDC
(Niramaya) CHC Rajkanika.
3. Tarakanta Behera,
Aged about 49 years,
Son of Pravakar Behera,
Presently working as DDC
(Niramaya) CHC RajNagar.
4. Jagannath Mallik,
Aged about 40 years,
Son of Raghunath Mallik,
Presently working as
Barunadiha AAM.
5. Pradipta Kumar Mallik,
Aged about 48 years,
Son of Babaji Charan Mallik,
Presently working as DDC
Niramaya SDH Pattamundai.
6. Babuli Charan Mallik,
Aged about 33 years,
Son of Keshab Mallik,
Presently working as
Ratadia AAM.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 41 of 116
7. Himanshu Bhusan Sethi,
Aged about 33 years,
Son of Madhusudan Sethi,
Presently working as DDC
Niramaya CHC Rajkanika.
8. Gouttam Majhi,
Aged about 35 years,
Son of Kailash Chandra Majhi,
Presently working as
Badakula PHC (N). … Appellants
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha,
Represented through the
Secretary to the Govt.,
Health and Family Welfare
Department, Lok Seva Bhawan,
Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
2. Secretary to Govt. in
S.T. & S.C. Development,
Minorities and Backward Classes Welfare Dept.,
Lok Seva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
3. Principal Secretary to Government in
Law Department, Lok Seva Bhawan,
Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
4. Director,
Public Health, Heads of Department
Building, Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
5. Chief District Medical & Public Health Officer,
Kendrapada,
At/PO/District: Kendrapada.
6. Anupama Nanda,
Aged about 37 years,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 42 of 116
Son of Abahya Kumar Nanda,
At/PO: Nantar, PS: Mahakalpada
District: Kendrapada,
presently working as
M.P.H.W.(Male) in Mahakalpada CHC,
District: Kendrapada.
7. Pradipta Kumar Roul,
Aged about 49 years,
Son of Nilamani Roul,
At/PO-Kalapada,
District: Kendrapada,
presently working as
M.P.H.W.(Male) in Indupur CHC,
District: Kendrapada.
8. Ramakanta Pradhan,
Aged about 41 years,
Son of Late Rabinarayan Pradhan,
At: Khannagar, PO: Janarabarimul,
District: Kendrapada,
Presently continuing as
M.P.H.W.(Male) Kendrapada
Municipality CHC,
District: Kendrapada.
9. Pradipta Kumar Behera,
Aged about 38 years,
Son of Parameswar Behera,
At/PO-Lokapada, District: Kendrapada
presently continuing as
M.P.H.W.(Male) of Rajkanika CHC,
District: Kendrapada.
10. Sanjay Kumar Pradhan,
Aged about 46 years,
Son of Artatrana Pradhan,
Kendudihi, At: Gojabandha,
PO: Mahakalpada, District: Kendrapada,
Presently continuing as M.P.H.W.
(Male) of Mahakalpada CHC,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 43 of 116
District: Kendrapada.
11. Raj Kishore Nayak,
Aged about 42 years,
Son of Sunakar Nayak,
At/P.O.: Kalabuda, District: Kendrapada,
Presently continuing as
M.P.H.W. (Male) of Patkura CHC,
Kendrapada.
12. Rasabihari Kundu,
Aged about 45 years,
Son of Utsabananananda Kundu,
At: Pandia, P.O.: Tikanpur,
District: Kendrapada,
presently continuing as
M.P.H.W.(Male) of Patkura CHC,
District: Kendrapada.
13. Jayaprakash Samal,
Aged about 42 years,
Son of Sarat Kumar Samal,
At/P.S.: Nuapada, District: Kendrapada
Presently continuing as
M.P.H.W.(Male) of Aul CHC,
District: Kendrapada.
14. Biswaranjan Jena,
Aged about 38 years,
Son of Sunakar Jena,
At-Sanabetera, P.O./P.S.: Kudanagari,
District: Kendrapada,
Presently continuing as
M.P.H.W. (Male) of Patkura CHC,
District: Kendrapada.
15. Aruna Kumar Nayak,
Aged about 45 years,
Son of Chandramani Nayak,
At-Pradhanpatikira, PO: Kusunpur,
District: Kendrapada,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 44 of 116
Presently continuing as
M.P.H.W.(Male) Patkura CHC,
District: Kendrapada.
16. Debasis Nayak,
Aged about 40 years,
Son of Purna Chandra Nayak,
At/PO-Balipata, District: Kendrapada,
Presently continuing as
M.P.H.W.(Male) Rajkanika CHC,
District: Kendrapada.
17. Sk. Sirajul Islam,
Aged about 38 years,
Son of Sk. Sultan,
At/PO-Kusiapal, District: Kendrapada,
Presently continuing as
M.P.H.W.(Male) of Aul CHC,
District: Kendrapada. … Respondents.
(Respondent Nos.1 to 5
were the Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 5;
Respondent Nos.6 to 17
were the petitioners in
the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.7735
of 2025).
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellants : Mr. Gautam Mukherji,
Senior Advocate
Assisted by
M/s. Arusmita Acharya,
Ankita Mukherji,
and Jagruti Mohanty, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Saswat Das,
Additional Government Advocate
W.A. No.1211 of 2026
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 45 of 116
(CNR No. ODHC01-067508-2026):
1. Subrata Kumar Das,
Aged about 43 years,
Son of Late Laxman Kumar Das,
Presently working as
Multi-Purpose Health Worker (Male) at
CHC, Balakati, Khordha.
2. Lambodar Naik,
Aged about 40 years,
Son of Simanchal Naik,
Presently working as Multi
Purpose Health Worker (Male) at CHC,
Tangi, Khordha. … Appellants
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha,
Represented through its
Secretary to Govt. Health & Family Welfare
Department, Odisha,
At- Lokseva Bhawan,
Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
2. Secretary to Govt. in
ST & SC Development,
Minorities and Backward Classes Welfare
Department, At- Lokaseva Bhawan,
Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
3. Principal Secretary to
Government in Law Department,
At- Lokaseva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
4. Director of Public Health,
Odisha, At- Heads of Department
Building, Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 46 of 116
5. Chief District Medical and Public Health
Officer, Khurda,
District: Khordha.
6. Tapas Ranjan Gumansingh,
Aged about 35 years.
Son of Kasinath Gumansingh,
At/P.O.: Jankia, District: Khordha,
Presently continuing as
MPHW (Male) of Tangi CHC,
District: Khordha.
7. Paresh Chandra Mahunta,
Aged about 39 years,
Son of Padma Charan Mahunta,
At- Prasanti Vihar,
Housing Board Colony, KIIT University,
Patia, District: Khordha,
Presently continuing as
MPHW (M) Banpur CHC,
District: Khordha.
8. Dhaneswar Sahoo,
Aged about 45 years,
Son of Bamburudhar Sahoo,
At: Bamadiha, PO: Baghamari,
District: Khordha,
Presently continuing as
MPHW (M) Botalama CHC,
District: Khordha.
9. Mihir Kumar Baliarsingh,
Aged about 36 years.
Son of Narayan Baliarsingh,
At: Tikatala, PO: Chakapada,
District: Khurda,
Presently continuing as
MPHW (M) Bankoi CHC,
District: Khurda.
10. Subhrakanta Sahoo,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 47 of 116
Aged about 35 years,
Son of Sudarsan Sahoo,
At: Majana, Angarapada,
PO: Chundaka,
District: Khordha,
Presently continuing as
MPHW (M) Haladia CHC,
District: Khordha.
11. Amarendra Sahoo,
Aged about 36 years,
Son of Late Gagan Bihari Sahoo,
At: Kateni, P.O.: Kantabada,
District: Khurda,
Presently continuing as
MPHW (M) Mendhasala CHC,
District: Khordha.
12. Jyotiraj Mala,
Aged about 34 years,
Son of Nabakishore Mala,
At/P.O.: Haja, District: Khordha,
Presently continuing as
MPHW (M) Botalama CHC,
District: Khordha.
13. Manas Kumar Sahoo,
Aged about 38 years,
Son of Dhruba Charan Sahoo,
At: Rayapurapatna, PO: Asarala,
District: Khordha,
Presently continuing as
MPHW (M) Bankoi CHC,
District: Khordha. … Respondents.
(Respondent Nos.1 to 5
were the Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 5;
and Respondent Nos.6 to 13
were the petitioner in the
Writ Petition (Civil) No.8372
of 2025).
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 48 of 116
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellants : Mr. Gautam Mukherji,
Senior Advocate
Assisted by
M/s. Arusmita Acharya,
Ankita Mukherji,
and Jagruti Mohanty, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Saswat Das,
Additional Government Advocate
W.A. No.1213 of 2026
(CNR No. ODHC01-067510-2026):
1. Dr. Harihar Singh,
Aged about 54 years,
Son of Late Gunakar Singh,
Currently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer at
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Niliguda, P.O.: Niliguda,
District:Malkangiri.
2. Dr. Rupnarayan Hembram,
Aged about 53 years,
Son of Late Birendra Nath Hembram,
Presently serving as
Homeopathic Medical Officer,
Government Homeopathic Dispensary,
Khiching, District: Mayurbhanj,
PIN: 757039. … Appellants
(Opposite party
Nos.7 and 5 in the
Writ Petition (Civil)
No.8720 of 2025).
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha,
Represented through its
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 49 of 116
Secretary to Govt. Health &
Family Welfare Department,
At: Lok Seva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
2. State of Odisha,
Represented through its
Principal Secretary, ST & SC Development,
Minority and Backward Classes Welfare Dept.
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
3. Special Secretary to Govt.
GA & PG Dept.
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
4. The Director,
AYUSH, Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
5. Dr. Kaibalya Kumar Rath,
Aged about 37 years,
Son of Prafulla Kumar Rath,
At: Sunapada, Po: Badapadana,
District: Keonjhar,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Kendua,
District: Keonjhar.
6. Dr. Swetapadma Nayak,
Aged about 35 years,
Daughter of Sarat Kumar Nayak,
At: Kanheipur, P.O.: Jajpur Road,
District: Jajpur,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Kamagarh, District: Jajpur.
7. Dr. Sonita Sarangi,
Aged about 41 years,
Daughter of Bijay Kumar Sarangi,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 50 of 116
At: Swarnalaya, P.O.: Bidanansi,
Nuasahi, District:Cuttack,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Mandar, District:Dhenkanal.
8. Dr. Purabi Priyadarshini,
Aged about 44 years,
Daughter of Purana Chandra Panda,
At: Patia, Po:KIIT, Plot No.533/3756,
Upasana Patia Station Road,
District: Khurda,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Surkabadi,
District: Nayagarh.
9. Dr. Anam Mohapatra,
Aged about 38 years,
Son of Late Banamali Mohapatra,
At/P.S.: Biswanathpur,
District: Khurda,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD Badagudiali, District: Ganjam.
10. Dr. Sarthak Kumar Dash,
Aged about 36 years,
Son of Harishankar Dash,
At/P.O.: Haripur, District: Mayurbhanj,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Pasuda, District: Mayurbhanj.
11. Dr. Puspak Kumar Dikshit,
Aged about 36 years,
Son of Prasanna Kumar Dikshit,
At: Demal, P.O./P.S.: Aul,
District: Kendrapara,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 51 of 116
GHD Langaleswar,
District: Ganjam.
12. Dr. Abhisek Kumar Lenka,
Aged about 35 years,
Son of Narayan Kumar Lenka,
At: Kantilo, P.O.: Mandasahi,
P.S.: Jagatsingpur, District: Jagatsinghpur,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD Maidankel,
District: Keonjhar.
13. Dr. Deepak Kumar Sahoo,
Aged about 37 years,
Son of Bhagyadhar Sahoo,
At/P.S.: Sunguda, P.S.: Badachana,
District: Jajpur,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Batto, District:Jajpur.
14. Dr. Monalisa Nayak,
Aged about 36 years,
Daughter of Gunacharan Nayak,
At: Karapada, P.S.: Binjharpur,
District: Jajpur,
at present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Jalasuan, District:Keonjhar.
15. Dr. Amlan Dash,
Aged about 41 years,
Son of Haramohan Dash,
At/P.S.: Manida, District: Mayurbhanj,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD Khadikapada,
District: Mayurbhanj.
16. Dr. Sidhartha Sankar Chanda,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 52 of 116
Aged about 34 years,
Son of Madhaba Chandra Chand,
At: Mundeilo-Balabhadrapur,
Po: Mundeilo, District: Dhenkanal,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Akula, District: Keonjhar.
17. Dr. Saumya Subhadarshini Tripathy,
Aged about 35 years,
Daughter of Biswamohan Tripathy,
At: Plot No-13, Gayatri Nagar,
Jagannath Road, District: Dhenkanal,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Bankisol, District: Mayurbhanj.
18. Dr. Bijaylaxmi Parida,
Aged about 38 years,
Daughter of Pratap Kumar Parida,
At/P.S.: Potangi, District: Koraput,
At present working as Homoeopathy
Medical Officer in GHD-Tarasahi,
District: Jagatsinghpur.
19. Dr. Sohanlal Agrawal,
Aged about 37 years,
Son of Sitaram Agrawal,
At/P.S.: Kotamora, District: Balangir,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in GHD-Kushkela,
District:Bolangir.
20. Dr. Swapna Mallik,
Aged about 59 years,
Daughter of Late Lalit Mohan Mallik,
Permanent resident of Chhendipada,
P.O. Khalari, P.S./Dist. Angul and
Presently serving Medical Officer,
I/c District Homeopathic Dispensary,
Dhenkanal.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 53 of 116
21. Dr. Promod Bihari Pradhan,
Aged about 58 years,
Permanent resident of FR-55/9,
Phase-II, Sailashree Vihar,
P.S. Kanan Vihar, District: Khordha
Presently serving as Medical Officer,
Govt. Homeopathic Dispensary,
Deogarh.
22. Dr. Santilata Behera,
Aged about 58 years,
Wife of Shri Ashok Kumar Behera,
Permanent resident of Madhusudan
Nagar, P.O./P.S. Jatni,
District: Khordha
Presently serving as Medical
Officer, I/c DHMO, Bhubaneswar.
23. Dr. Pratap Chandra Das,
Aged about 52 years,
Son of Shri Bauri Bandhu Das,
Permanent resident of Sahaspur,
P.O. Nalipur, P.S. Mahanga,
District: Kataka
Presently serving as
Medical Officer, Dr. Abhin Chandra
Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital,
Bhubaneswar.
24. Dr. Shyamananda Behera,
Aged about 55 years,
Son of Late Brendranath Behera,
Permanent resident of At/P.O. Remu,
P.S. Baliapal, District: Balasore
Presently serving as Medical
Officer, Govt. Homeopathic Dispensary Mania,
Kandhamal.
25. Dr. Laxminarayan Mahanna,
Aged about 50 years,
Son of Late Gangadhar Mahanna,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 54 of 116
Permanent resident of
At/P.O. Singiri, P.S.: Nilgiri,
District: Balasore
Presently serving as
Medical Officer, Dr. Abhin Chandra
Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital,
Bhubaneswar.
26. Dr. Rajendra Kumar Das,
Aged about 53 years,
Son of Shri Rama Krushna Das,
Permanent resident of Hirapur,
P.O. Garhsrirampur, P.S.: Balianta,
District: Khordha
Presently serving as
Homeopathic Medical Officer,
In the office of the
District Medical Officer,
Sambalpur. … Respondents
(Respondent Nos.1 to 4 were
the opposite party Nos.1 to
4 and Respondent Nos.5 to
19 were the petitioners and
respondents No.20 to 26
were intervenors in
the Writ
Petition (Civil)
No.8720 of 2025)
27. Dr. Sarmila Soren,
At- GHD Bautibeda,
District: Mayurbhanj,
Pin- 757033.
28. Dr. Rajendranarayan Sahu,
At- LRHMO, Office of the
DHMO, Koraput,
District: Koraput, Pin- 764020.
29. Dr. Prafulla Majhi,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 55 of 116
At: GHD Jamera, P.S.: Jamera,
District: Jharsuguda,
PIN: 768202. … Proforma Respondents
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellants : Mr. Gautam Mukherji,
Senior Advocate
Assisted by
M/s. Arusmita Acharya,
Ankita Mukherji, and
Jagruti Mohanty, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Saswat Das,
Additional Government Advocate
W.A. No.1214 of 2026
(CNR No. ODHC01-067505-2026):
1. Dr. Bhanja Kishore Sethy,
Aged about 53 years,
Son of Late Jaganmohan Sethy,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B)
At Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Haladharpur, At/P.S.: Haladharpur,
Via-Naranapur, Dist.-Keonjhar,
Pin: 758014.
2. Dr. Rashmikala Sethy,
Aged about 50 years,
Daughter of Er. Harihara Sethy,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B)
At Government Homeopathy
Dispensary, Panasudha, Jajpur,
Pin: 754250.
3. Dr. Sasmita Mandal,
Aged about 47 years,
Daughter of Surendra Nath Mandal,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 56 of 116
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B)
At Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Kasabajaypur, District: Balasore,
Pin-756043.
4. Dr. Smaranika Patra,
Aged about 36 years,
Daughter of Nityananda Patra,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B)
At Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
At/P.S.: Guamal, Via-Tihidi,
District: Bhadrak, Pin-756163.
5. Dr. Debi Prasad Sethi,
Aged about 38 years,
Son of Bansidhar Sethi,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B)
At Ayushman Arogya Mandir,
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Sogar, Via-Analabereni,
District:Dhenkanal, Pin: 759026.
6. Dr. Arundhati Bag,
Aged about 37 years,
Daughter of Labanidhar Bag,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B)
At Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Darlipali, Sundargarh.
7. Dr. Tarakanta Patra,
Aged about 46 years,
Son of Late Bidyadhar Patra,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B)
At Government Homeopathy
Dispensary, Rimuli,
Champua, Keonjhar, PIN: 758047.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 57 of 116
8. Dr. Aseema Surin,
Aged about 35 years,
Care of Mr. Ruben Surin,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B)
At Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Tumulia, At-Near Manikeswari Degree
College, PO.-G. Tumulia,
District: Sundargarh,
PIN: 770024.
9. Dr. Monalisa Priyadarshini,
Aged about 35 years,
Daughter of Prahallad Sethi,
Presently working as Homeopathic
Medical Officer (Group B) at
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Biribolei, Kankadahad,
Dhenkanal, PIN: 759029.
10. Dr. Nibedita Das,
Aged about 40 years,
Daugther of Bhanu Charan Das,
Presently working as Homeopathic
Medical Officer (Group B) at
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
At-Gadasahi, P.O.-Oupada,
District: Balasore, PIN: 756047.
11. Dr. Ranjita Malik,
Aged about 43 years,
Daughter of Late Gangadhar Malik,
Presently working as Homeopathic
Medical Officer (Group B) at Government
Homeopathy Dispensary,
Tentulinanda, At/P.S.: Moreigaon,
Via-Hatadihi, Dist.-Keonjhar,
PIN: 758083.
12. Dr. Sankarsan Sethi,
Aged about 45 years,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 58 of 116
Son of Maguni Charan Sethi,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B) at
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Nahabeda, At/P.S.: Nahabeda,
District: Keonjhar, PIN: 758031.
13. Dr. Bhabani Senapati,
Aged about 35 years,
Care of Gajendra Senapati,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B) at
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Laxmiposi, Mayurbhanj Circle.
14. Dr. Anupama Haldar,
Aged about 39 years,
Daughter of Late Arun Kumar Haldar,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B) at
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Jamaranda, Nabarangpur.
15. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Malik,
Aged about 47 years,
Son of Kailash Chandra Malik,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B) at
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Areikana, At/P.S.: Areikana,
Via-Dharmasala, Dist.-Jajpur,
PIN- 755008.
16. Dr. Balunkeswar Namdeo,
Aged about 34 years,
Son of Shekhar Banamali Namdeo,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B) at
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Laikera, At/P.O.: Laikera,
District: Jharsuguda.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 59 of 116
17. Dr. Amiya Kumar Behera,
Aged about 47 years,
Son of Late Sibaram Behera,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B) at
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Maikancha, Rayagada,
PIN-765015.
18. Dr. Swama Smita Shial,
Aged about 35 years,
Daughter of Jadunath Shial,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B) at
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
At/P.S.: Aghirapada, Via- Oupada,
District:Balasore, PIN-756049.
19. Dr. Triloka Nanda Das,
Aged about 35 years,
Care of Mr.Jaladhar Das,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B) at
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Khalamada, At/P.O.: Khalamada,
Via-Nuagaon, Dist.-Nayagarh,
PIN: 752083.
20. Dr. Doli Sethi,
Aged about 40 years,
Daughter of Rabindra Ku.Sethi,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B) at
Utkalamani Homeopathic
Medical College and Hospital,
Rourkela, District: Sundargarh.
21. Dr. Subhashree Mahapatra,
Aged about 35 years,
Daughter of Krushna Chandra Mohapatra,
Presently working as
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 60 of 116
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B) at
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Injidi, At/P.S.: Injidi,
District:-Angul, PIN-759118.
22. Dr. Tusar Ranjan Sethi,
Aged about 34 years,
Son of Sudhakar Sethi,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B) at
Dispensary, At/P.O.: Dimiria,
Via-Nandipada, Dist.-Keonjhar,
PIN: 756121.
23. Dr. Jyotirmayee Mallick,
Aged about 41 years,
Daughter of Kashinath Mallick,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B) at
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Bikrampur, Rayagada,
Koraput Circle.
24. Tanushree Behera,
Aged about 42 years,
Daughter of Surendra Behera,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B) at
Kataka Circle, LRHMO.
25. Dr. Laxmipriya Sethi,
Aged about 39 years,
Daughter of Gajendra Nath Sethi,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B) at
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
At/P.S.: Ramakrushnapur, Block-Bonth,
P.S.-Bhadrak, PIN: 756113.
26. Dr. Hemanta Kumar Behera,
Aged about 46 years,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 61 of 116
Son of Pitabasa Behera,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B) at
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Gurusang, Thianal, Barkote,
Debagada, PIN: 768110.
27. Dr. Bikash Surin,
Aged about 31 years,
Son of Leonard Surin,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B) at
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Lahanda, At/P.S.: Lahanda,
Block- Nuagaon, P.S.-Bisra,
District:Sundargarh, PIN: 769042.
28. Dr. Premananda Behera,
Aged about 43 years,
Son of Jagannath Behera,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B) at
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Kellapada, District: Kandhamal.
29. Dr. George Surin,
Aged about 57 years,
Son of Benjamin Surin,
Presently working as
Homeopathic Medical Officer (Group B) at
Government Homeopathy Dispensary,
Sundargarh Town, At/P.S.: Sundargarh
Town, P.O.-Sundargarh H.Q.,
District:-Sundargarh,
PIN: 770001, Odisha. … Appellants
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha,
Represented through its
Secretary to Govt. Health & Family Welfare Dept.
At: Lok Seva Bhawan,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 62 of 116
Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
2. State of Odisha,
Represented through its
Principal Secretary,
ST & SC Development,
Minority and Backward Classes
Welfare Dept.
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
3. Special Secretary to Govt.
GA & PG Dept.
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
4. The Director,
AYUSH, Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
5. Dr. Kaibalya Kumar Rath,
Aged about 37 years,
Son of Prafulla Kumar Rath,
At: Sunapada, P.O.: Badapadana,
District: Keonjhar,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Kendua, District: Keonjhar.
6. Dr. Swetapadma Nayak,
Aged about 35 years,
Daughter of Sarat Kumar Nayak,
At-Kanheipur, P.O.: Jajpur Road,
District: Jajpur,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Kamagarh, District: Jajpur.
7. Dr. Sonita Sarangi,
Aged about 41 years,
Daughter of Bijay Kumar Sarangi,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 63 of 116
At: Swarnalaya, P.O.: Bidanansi,
Nuasahi, District: Kataka,
at present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Mandar, District: Dhenkanal.
8. Dr. Purabi Priyadarshini,
Aged about 44 years,
Daughter of Purana Chandra Panda,
At-Patia, P.S.: KIIT, Plot No- 533/3756,
Upasana Patia Station Road,
District: Khordha,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Surkabadi, District: Nayagarh.
9. Dr. Anam Mohapatra,
Aged about 38 years,
Son of Late Banamali Mohapatra,
At/P.S.: Biswanathpur,
District: Khurda,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Badagudiali, District: Ganjam.
10. Dr. Sarthak Kumar Dash,
Aged about 36 years,
Son of Harishankar Dash,
At/P.S.: Haripur, District: Mayurbhanj,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Pasuda, District: Mayurbhanj.
11. Dr. Puspak Kumar Dikshit,
aged about 36 years,
Son of Prasanna Kumar Dikshit,
At-Demal, P.O./P.S.: Aul,
District: Kendrapara,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Langaleswar, District: Ganjam.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 64 of 116
12. Dr. Abhisek Kumar Lenka,
Aged about 35 years,
Son of Narayan Kumar Lenka,
At-Kantilo, P.S.: Mandasahi,
P.S.: Jagatsingpur, District: Jagatsinghpur,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Maidankel, District: Keonjhar.
13. Dr. Deepak Kumar Sahoo,
Aged about 37 years,
Son of Bhagyadhar Sahoo,
At/P.S.: Sunguda, P.S.: Badachana,
District: Jajpur,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Batto, District: Jajpur.
14. Dr. Monalisa Nayak,
Aged about 36 years,
Daughter of Gunacharan Nayak,
At-Karapada, P.S.: Binjharpur,
District: Jajpur,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Jalasuan, District: Keonjhar.
15. Dr. Amlan Dash,
Aged about 41 years,
Son of Haramohan Dash,
At/P.S.: Manida, District: Mayurbhanj,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Khadikapada, District: Mayurbhanj.
16. Dr. Sidhartha Sankar Chanda,
Aged about 34 years,
Son of Madhaba Chandra Chand,
At-Mundeilo-Balabhadrapur,
P.S.: Mundeilo, District: Dhenkanal,
At present working as
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 65 of 116
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Akula, District: Keonjhar.
17. Dr. Saumya Subhadarshini Tripathy,
Aged about 35 years,
Daughter of Biswamohan Tripathy,
At-Plot No-13, Gayatri Nagar,
Jagannath Road, District: Dhenkanal,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Bankisol, District: Mayurbhanj.
18. Dr. Bijaylaxmi Parida,
Aged about 38 years,
Daughter of Pratap Kumar Parida,
At/P.S.: Potangi, District: Koraput,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Tarasahi, District: Jagatsinghpur.
19. Dr. Sohanlal Agrawal,
Aged about 37 years,
Son of Sitaram Agrawal,
At/P.S.: Kotamora, District: Balangir,
At present working as
Homoeopathy Medical Officer in
GHD-Kushkela, District: Bolangir.
20. Dr. Swapna Mallik,
Aged about 59 years,
Daughter of Late Lalit Mohan Mallik,
Permanent resident of Chhendipada,
P.O. Khalari, P.S./Dist. Angul and
Presently serving Medical Officer,
I/c District Homeopathic Dispensary,
Dhenkanal.
21. Dr. Promod Bihari Pradhan,
Aged about 58 years,
Permanent resident of FR-55/9,
Phase-II, Sailashree Vihar,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 66 of 116
P.S. Kanan Vihar, Dist. Khurda and
Presently serving as Medical Officer,
Govt. Homeopathic Dispensary, Deogarh.
22. Dr. Santilata Behera,
Aged about 58 years,
Wife of Shri Ashok Kumar Behera,
Permanent resident of Madhusudan Nagar,
P.O./P.S. Jatni, Dist. Khurda and
Presently serving as Medical Officer,
I/c DHMO, Bhubaneswar.
23. Dr. Pratap Chandra Das,
Aged about 52 years,
Son of Shri Bauri Bandhu Das,
Permanent resident of Sahaspur,
P.O. Nalipur, P.S. Mahanga,
Dist. Cuttack and
Presently serving as Medical Officer,
Dr. Abhin Chandra Homeopathic Medical
College & Hospital, Bhubaneswar.
24. Dr. Shyamananda Behera,
Aged about 55 years,
Son of Late Brendranath Behera,
Permanent resident of
At/P.O. Remu, RS. Baliapal,
Dist. Balasore and
Presently serving as Medical Officer,
Govt. Homeopathic Dispensary Mania,
Kandhamal.
25. Dr. Laxminarayan Mahanna,
Aged about 50 years,
Son of son of Late Gangadhar Mahanna,
Permanent resident of At/P.O. Singiri,
P.S. Nilgiri, Dist. Balasore and
Presently serving as Medical Officer,
Dr. Abhin Chandra Homeopathic
Medical College & Hospital,
Bhubaneswar.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 67 of 116
26. Dr. Rajendra Kumar Das,
Aged about 53 years,
Son of Shri Rama Krushna Das,
Permanent resident of Hirapur,
P.O. Garhsrirampur, P.S. Balianta,
District: Khordha and
Presently serving as Homeopathic
Medical Officer, in the office of the
District Medical Officer,
Sambalpur. … Respondents.
(Respondent Nos.1 to 4
were the Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 4;
Respondent No.5 to 19
were the petitioner and
Respondent Nos.20 and 26
were the intervenors
the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.8720
of 2025).
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellants : Mr. Gautam Mukherji,
Senior Advocate
Assisted by
M/s. Arusmita Acharya,
Ankita Mukherji,
and Jagruti Mohanty, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Saswat Das,
Additional Government Advocate
D-W.A. No.39849 of 2026
(CNR No. ODHC01-065635-2026):
1. Banita Khamari,
Aged about 41 years,
Daughter of Sreebachha Khamari,
Wife of Dhirendra Kumar Naik
Residing at Kaliakundal,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 68 of 116
PO- Junagarh, District: Kalahandi,
Odisha, at present serving as a
MPHW(F), L-II in SC category,
Under CHCJaipatna,
Sundrijore AAM SC in the District of
Khalahandi.
2. Jyosnarani Bag,
Aged about 42 years,
Daughter of Subash Chandra Bag,
Ward No. 10, At/P.O.-Kesinga,
District: Kalahandi, Odisha,
At present serving as a MPHW(F),
L-II in SC Category, under
CHC-Karlamunda, Rajpur AAM
SC in the District of
Kalahandi. … Appellants
-VERSUS-
1. State Of Odisha, Odisha
Represented through the
Secretary to Govt. Health &
Family welfare Department,
Govt. of Odisha, Lokseva Bhawan,
Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
2. Director, Family & Welfare,
Odisha, At.-Heads of Departmental
Building, Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha.
3. Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer,
Kalahandi,
At./P.O./P.S.- Bhawanipatna,
District: Kalahandi. … Respondents.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 69 of 116
For the Appellant : Mr. Haladhar Sethy, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Saswat Das,
Additional Government Advocate
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. HARISH TANDON
AND
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Date of Hearing : 29.09.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 29.10.2026
JUDGMENT
The appellants in W.A. No.440 of 2026 by way of this
intra-Court appeal assail the judgment dated
22.01.2026 passed in the bunch of matters by the
learned Single Judge by which the writ application filed
by the respondent No.5, being W.P.(C) No.19884 of 2025,
[for quashing of the order of promotion dated 09.07.2025
in favour of all the Assistant Engineers (Civil) belonging
to Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Category; to
promote the writ petitioner as Assistant Executive
Engineer (Civil) under Water Resources Department with
all consequential service benefits by reviewing the
decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee; to
quash the Letter No.9338, dated 06.05.2024, dated
11.09.2024 and dated 27.02.2025] was allowed.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 70 of 116
2. The facts leading to challenge made to judgment dated
22.01.2026 rendered in batch of writ petitions by the
learned Single Judge viz., Hiranmayee Nayak Vs. State of
Odisha, W.P.(C) No.7674 of 2025 &c.
1 as stated in W.A.
No.440 of 2026 [relating to Writ Appeal No.19884 of
2025] are taken into consideration.
2.1. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19884 of 2025
(respondent No.5 in Writ Appeal No.440 of 2026) had
filed the writ petition praying inter alia to quash the
order dated 09.07.2025 directing promotion of the
Assistant Engineer to that of the Assistant Executive
Engineer on the ground that 73 numbers of Assistant
Engineer (Civil) belonging to Scheduled Tribe and
Scheduled Caste (for short, “ST & SC”) Categories have
been included as against 148 posts earmarked for
unreserved category posts. The writ petitioner also
assailed the gradation list, finally published on
17.06.2025, on the ground that though the opposite
party No.6 to 9 are juniors to the writ petitioner have
been given promotion vide order dated 09.07.2025
ignoring the seniority and claim of the petitioner for
promotion.
1
W.P.(C) Nos. 3289, 4527, 4707, 4709, 4928, 5063, 6555 , 6661, 6663, 6687,
6691, 7129, 7901, 8372, 8380, 8382, 8510, 8573, 862 7, 8720, 8739, 8875,
9265, 9277, 9291, 9296, 9397, 9643, 9789, 9985, 100 42, 10105, 10223,
10224, 10721, 10923, 11039, 12454, 12973, 13367, 13 600, 14016, 14228,
15864, 15998, 16104, 16316, 18943, 18965, 19487, 19 512, 19884, 21084,
21393, 22005, 22656, 23002, 23166, 23781, 24202, 24 631, 25482 & 27932 OF
2025 vide 2026 ILR-CUT ONLINE 1303.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 71 of 116
2.2. The case of the writ petitioner (the present respondent
No. 5) as adumbrated in the writ petition vide W.P.(C)
No.19884 of 2025 is briefly stated as follows:
(a) Writ petitioner/respondent No. 5 belonging to
Socially Economically Backward Class category
joined the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the
Water Resources Department on 07.04.2007 on
contractual basis and subsequently after
completion of six years of contractual service he
was regularised as Junior Engineer.
(b) The present appellants (opposite party No.6 to 9 in
the writ petition), belonging to ST & SC categories,
joined the post of Junior Engineer on contractual
basis and got regularised subsequent to the writ
petitioner on different dates in different years
against the post earmarked for their respective
reserved categories (ST & SC).
(c) After introduction of the Odisha Diploma
Engineers‟ Service (Methods of Recr uitment &
Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 (“ODES Rules”
for brevity), the writ petitioner belonging to
unreserved category was found suitable for
promotion into the next higher post of Assistant
Engineer (Civil) in the Meeting of the Departmental
Promotion Committee held in the year 2019 and
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 72 of 116
accordingly, he was promoted vide order dated
06.10.2020 as an unreserved category candidate.
(d) The present appellants, initially appointed against
Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste category
(against the quota of posts earmarked for their
respective category) were also granted promotion as
the Assistant Engineer (Civil) subsequent to the
petitioner in the DPC Meetings held during the
years 2021 and 2022 against the reserved posts of
Assistant Engineer (Civil) earmarked against the
roster point for SC & ST category and not on the
basis of their own merit, thereby superseding
others who were senior to these appellants.
(e) Questioning legality, it is stated that the State
illegally applied the reservation in promotion in
gross violation of the law laid down in M. Nagaraj
Vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 and there was
absence of Rules framed by the Government
prescribing reservation in the promotion in the
Grade of Assistant Engineer (Civil). Therefore the
State should not have extended reservation in
promotion and extend consequential seniority in
favour promotees against the roster point while
preparing gradation list (finally published on
17.06.2025) of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the
Water Resource Department.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 73 of 116
(f) The service of the Assistant Engineer (Civil) is
guided by the ODES Rules, 2012, but the
provisions of said Recruitment Rules were
overlooked while preparing the final gradation list
dated 17.06.2025. The writ petitioner should have
been assigned appropriate seniority on the basis of
his date of joining the promotional post of Assistant
Engineer (Civil) in consonance with Rule 16 of the
said Rules.
(g) The total sanctioned strength of Assistant
Executive Engineer (Civil) was 1076, out of which
430 sanctioned posts were earmarked for
promotional quota in the ratio of 60:40 [i.e., 60 %
was to be filled by direct recruitment and 40% was
to be filled by promotion from Assistant Engineer
as per ODES Rules, 2012].
(h) Proviso to Rule 3A as inserted by virtue of the
Odisha Civil Services (Criteria for Promotion)
Amendment Rules, 2022 in the Odisha Civil
Services (Criteria for Promotion) Rules, 1992
2 states
2
Rule 3A has been inserted by virtue of the Odisha Civil Services (Criteria for
Promotion) Amendment Rules, 2022, with effect from 12.10.2022, vide Odisha
Gazette, Extraordinary No.2890, dated 12.10.2022, reads as follows:
―3-A Notwithstanding anything contained in the relevant recruitment rules ,
where the promotion is to be considered as per the post based reservation
(by way of replacement theory), the separate zone of consideration shall
be applicable:
Provided that the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidates
appointed on their own merit either by direct recruitment or by promotion
and placed above the unreserved candidates in the merit list shall be
considered and adjusted against the unreserved vacancies and such
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 74 of 116
that the persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe and
Scheduled Caste categories who were selected on
their own merit by direct recruitment or promotion
and were placed above the unreserved category
employees in the merit list shall be considered and
adjusted against the vacancies meant for filling up
unreserved category persons and such posts are
not to be counted within the quota fixed for
reserved category.
(i) The writ petitioner/present respondent No.5 has
also assailed the Clarification vide Letter dated
06.05.2024 and dated 27.02.2025 issued by the
Government of Odisha in Scheduled Tribe and
Scheduled Caste Development Department based
on the Law Department Clarification by Letter
dated 27.02.2024, which opined that if the reserved
category candidate is on the top of the gradation
list over a general category candidate, the person of
general category cannot be promoted to the next
unreserved category vacancy by-passing the
reserved category candidate. The writ petitioner
challenged the aforesaid letter on the ground that
State of Odisha has not framed any policy providing
reservation in promotion granting consequential
seniority in any service nor has it collected
candidates are not to be counted within the percentage earmarked for
reservation of their category.‖
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 75 of 116
quantifiable date pertaining to inadequacy of
representation of Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled
Caste people in the post of the Assistant Engineer
and the Assistant Executive Engineer.
(j) On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings the writ
petition was filed by the writ petitioner/present
respondent No.5 praying to quash the said letters
and consequential action taken thereof.
2.3. By a common judgment dated 22.01.2026 in batch of
matters being Hiranmayee Nayak Vs. State of Odisha,
W.P.(C) No.7674 of 2025 reported at 2026 ILR-CUT
ONLINE 1303 the learned Single Judge has made
following observations while allowing the writ petitions:
―9. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the
parties and considering the submissions made, this
Court finds that eligibility of an employee to get the
benefit of promotion in any cadre is provided under
the OCS (Criteria for Promotion) Rules, 1992. While
amending Rule 3 of the 1992 Rules
3 with insertion of
3
Rule 3 of the Odisha Civil Services (Criteria for Promotion) Rules, 1992, stands
thus:
―3. Criteria for Promotion.—
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Recruitment Rules, —
(a) all promotion to the posts or grades of different Services/Civil
Posts under the State Government shall be made by selection;
(b) selection for such promotion shall be made on the basis of merit
and suitability in all respect with due regard to seniority and the
names of persons included in the Select List shall be arranged in
order of seniority in the feeder service or grade :Provided that any
Junior officer of exceptional merit and suitability may be assigned
a place higher than his seniors and in such case the assignment of
higher position to the junior officer shall be limited to the same
batch or year of allotment except where an officer of the earlier
batch or year of allotment is found unsuitable for promotion:
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 76 of 116
Rule 3A, it was clearly provided that ST & SC
candidates appointed on their own merit either by
direct recruitment or by promotion and placed above
the Unreserved candidates in the merit list shall be
considered and adjusted against the un-reserved
vacancy and such candidates are not to be counted
against the percentage earmarked for reservation of
their category.
9.1. This Court finds that on the face of such clear
provision contained under Rule 3A of the
Amendment Rules, 2022, opposite party No.3 while
Provided further that where promotion is made from different
services or posts and no common seniority among such officers
exists, their names in the Select List shall be arranged on the basis
of their merit adjudged during selection.
Explanation.—
The expression ‗BATCH OR YEAR OF ALLOTMENT ‘ means the calendar
year of the select list on the basis of which an officer is promoted
to the higher rank.
(c) In order to judge the suitability of an officer for promotion, the
Orissa Public Service Commission, the Departmental Promotion
Committee, the Selection Commission or Selection Board, as the
case may be, shall scrutinise preceding five available annual
Confidential Character Rolls [Performance Appraisal Reports
(PARs), as substituted vide General Administration Department
Notification No.2R/1-24/2004-5906-Gen., dated 25.02.2005.] and
other documents, if any, having a bearing on the performance and
conduct of all eligible officers, unless for reasons to be recorded, it
is considered necessary to refer to any earlier record to adjudge an
officer‘s suitability:
Provided the available Confidential Character Rolls [Performance
Appraisal Reports (PARs) as Added vide Odisha Gazette
Extraordinary No. 668, dated 21.04.2007] taken into consideration
for promotion as above shall include C.C.Rs./(P.A.Rs.) covering at
least a period of three years in preceding five years.
Note:I.—
The expression ‗OTHER DOCUMENTS ‘ means papers of whatsoever
nature having bearing on the performance and conduct of eligible
officers like C.B.I. or Vigilance reports, papers relating to
departmental action and other confidential reports having nexus
with an officer‘s performances which might have been prepared
after giving an opportunity to an officer of being heard and not
reflected in his C.C.Rs./(P.A.Rs.) or service records.
Note:II.—
The expression ‗PRECEDING FIVE YEARS ‘ means the five years
preceding the year which the officer ‘s performance is, in
accordance with the relevant Recruitment Rules, first evaluated.‖
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 77 of 116
issuing the impugned clarification on 06.05.2024
and 27.02.2025 basing on the view given by the
Law Department on 27.02.2024 held that reserve
category employees who have availed reservation in
appointment, could be promoted against Unreserved
vacancy to treat them as their own merit.
9.2. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under
Rule 6 of the 1992 Rules, it is the view of this Court
that it is only the General Administration and Public
Grievances Department who is competent to issue
any clarification while interpreting any of the Rules
so contained under the 1992 Rules. It is also found
that impugned clarification has been issued by
opposite party No.3-department without prior
concurrence/approval of the Hon‘ble Governor of
Odisha. Since 1992 Rules as well as the
Amendment Rules, 2022 have been framed under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India and such a
rule was issued with due approval of the Hon‘ble
Governor, placing reliance on the provisions
contained under Articles 154 and 162 of the
Constitution of India and the decision in the case of
Prasanna Kumar Sahoo
4, so followed by this Court
in W.P.(C) No.12518 of 2020
5 and batch so cited
(supra), it is the view of this Court that opposite
party No.3 is not competent to issue any such
clarification so issued on 06.05.2024 and
27.02.2025, without prior approval of the Governor
and Law Department was also not competent to give
its view on 27.02.2024, basing on which such a
clarification was issued on 06.05.2024.
4
State of Odisha and Others Vs. Prasanna Kumar Sahoo, (2007) 15 SCC 129.
5
Gopinath Sahu Vs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.12518 of 2020, vide judgmen t
dated 03.08.2020 of High Court of Orissa.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 78 of 116
9.3. It is also the view of this Court that in terms of the
provision contained under Article 16(4A) of the
Constitution of India and decisions rendered by the
Hon‘ble Apex Court in the case of M. Nagaraj
6, so
followed in Jarnail Singh
7 so cited (supra) and the
provision contained under Article 335 of the
Constitution of India, since no quantifiable data has
yet been collected by the State with regard to
inadequacy of representation of reserve category
candidate in any cadre of posts, so admitted before
the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Pravakar
Mallick
8 so cited (supra), in absence of any such
quantifiable data being collected by the State
showing inadequacy of representation of SC and ST
candidates in any cadre and the overall efficiency,
no such clarification could have been issued by
opposite party No.3 on 06.05.2024 and 27.02.2025.
9.4. Since in terms of the decision of the Hon‘ble Apex
Court in the case of M. Nagraj and Jarnail Singh, no
such quantifiable data has yet been collected and
the impugned clarification has been issued by
opposite party No.3 contrary to the provisions
contained under Rule 6 of the 1992 Rules as well as
Articles 154 and 162 of the Constitution of India, it
is the view of this Court that the impugned
clarification issued on 06.05.2024, directed to be
followed in communication dated 27.02.2025 basing
on the clarification issued by the Law Department on
27.02.2024, are not sustainable in the eye of law
and stand quashed. Consequentially, any action
taken basing on such clarification issued on
6
M. Nagaraj Vs. Union of India, (2006) 7 Suppl. SCR 336 = (2006) 8 SCC 212.
7
Jarnail Singh Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCR 663 = (2018 ) 10 SCC
396; Jarnail Singh Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2022) 19 SCR 711 = 2022 INSC
105.
8
Pravakar Mallick Vs. State of Odisha, (2020) 5 SCR 222 = AIR 2020 SC 2122.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 79 of 116
06.05.2024 and 27.02.2025 are also not
sustainable in the eye of law and stand quashed.
The decisions rendered by this Court in the case of
Lalit Kumar Nayak as well as Litu Behera on the
face of the provision contained under Article 16(4A)
of the Constitution of India and the decision in the
case of M. Nagraj as well as Jarnail Singh as per the
considered view of this Court are judgments per-
incuriam.
9.5. Therefore, this Court while quashing clarification
dated 06.05.2024 and communication dated
27.02.2025 so issued by opposite party No.3 as well
as consequential action taken thereof by various
departments of the State, direct the concerned
departments in the present batch of Writ Petitions to
follow the provisions contained under Rule 3A of the
Amendment Rules, 2022 and so also the provision
contained under Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of
India read with the decision in the case of M. Nagraj
and Jarnail Singh with regard to promotion of SC &
ST candidates.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, all the
Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly‖
2.4. Being dissatisfied with the above perception of law and
factual erroneous approach of the learned Single Judge,
the opposite party No.6 to 9 (appellants herein) have
preferred this writ appeal.
3. At this stage it is of benevolence to take note of rulings
in State of Odisha and Others Vs. Prasanna Kumar
Sahoo, (2007) 15 SCC 129; M. Nagraj Vs. Union of India,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 80 of 116
(2006) 8 SCC 212; Jarnail Singh Vs. Lachhmi Narain
Gupta, (2018) 10 SCR 663; Pravakar Mallick Vs. State of
Odisha, (2020) 5 SCR 222; Jarnail Singh Vs. Lachhmi
Narain Gupta, (2022) 19 SCR 711; Union of India Vs. G.
Kiran, (2026) 1 SCR 141 ; The West Bengal State
Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd Vs. Dipendu Biswas,
(2026) 4 SCR 600.
3.1. In State of Odisha and Others Vs. Prasanna Kumar
Sahoo, (2007) 15 SCC 129 it has been observed as
follows:
―11. It is now well settled that a State is bound by the
constitutional scheme to treat all persons equally in
the matter of grant of public employment as
envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
12. Even a policy decision taken by the State in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Article 162 of the
Constitution of India would be subservient to the
recruitment rules framed by the State either in terms
of a legislative Act or the proviso appended to Article
309 of the Constitution of India. A purported policy
decision issued by way of an executive instruction
cannot override the statute or statutory rules far less
the constitutional provisions.
13. In A. Umarani v. Registrar, Coop. Societies, (2004) 7
SCC 112 this Court has held:
‗45. No regularisation is, thus, permissible in
exercise of the statutory power conferred under
Article 162 of the Constitution if the
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 81 of 116
appointments have been made in contravention
of the statutory rules.‘
14. The Circular Letter dated 21.03.1995 even does not
purport to lay a policy decision relating to
regularisation or absorption of the census
employees. It only provided for relaxation of age.
Such relaxation was also subject to strict compliance
with the recruitment rules. If by reason of some
misconception or otherwise, the Tribunal had
granted some relief in favour of some census
employees, the same by itself, in our opinion, would
not confer any legal right upon a person for being
absorbed in State services without compliance with
the mandatory provisions of the recruitment rules
and the constitutional scheme adumbrated under
Article 16 of the Constitution of India.‖
3.2. Relevant paragraphs in M. Nagraj Vs. Union of India,
(2006) 8 SCC 212 are reproduced hereunder:
―2. The facts in the above writ petition, which is the lead
petition, are as follows:
The petitioners have invoked Article 32 of the
Constitution for a writ in the nature of certiorari to
quash the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act,
2001 inserting Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution
retrospectively from 17-6-1995 providing reservation
in promotion with consequential seniority as being
unconstitutional and violative of the basic structure.
According to the petitioners, the impugned
amendment reverses the decisions of this Court in
Union of India Vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan, (1995) 6
SCC 684, Ajit Singh Januja Vs. State of Punjab,
(1996) 2 SCC 715 (Ajit Singh-I), Ajit Singh (II) Vs.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 82 of 116
State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209, Ajit Singh (III) Vs.
State of Punjab, (2000) 1 SCC 430, Indra Sawhney
Vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 and M.G.
Badappanavar Vs. State of Karnataka, (2001) 2
SCC 666. The petitioners say that Parliament has
appropriated the judicial power to itself and has
acted as an Appellate Authority by reversing the
judicial pronouncements of this Court by the use of
power of amendment as done by the impugned
amendment and is, therefore, violative of the basic
structure of the Constitution. The said amendment
is, therefore, constitutionally invalid and is liable to
be set aside. The petitioners have further pleaded
that the amendment also seeks to alter the
fundamental right of equality which is part of the
basic structure of the Constitution. The petitioners
say that the equality in the context of Article 16(1)
connotes ―accelerated promotion‖ so as not to
include consequential seniority. The petitioners say
that by attaching consequential seniority to the
accelerated promotion, the impugned amendment
violates equality in Article 14 read with Article 16(1).
The petitioners further say that by providing
reservation in the matter of promotion with
consequential seniority, there is impairment of
efficiency. The petitioners say that in Indra
Sawhney, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 decided on
16.11.1992, this Court has held that under Article
16(4), reservation to the Backward Classes is
permissible only at the time of initial recruitment and
not in promotion. The petitioners say that contrary to
the said judgment delivered on 16.11.1992,
Parliament enacted the Constitution (Seventy-
seventh Amendment) Act, 1995. By the said
amendment, Article 16(4-A) was inserted, which
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 83 of 116
reintroduced reservation in promotion. The
Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act,
1995 is also challenged by some of the petitioners.
The petitioners say that if accelerated seniority is
given to the roster-point promotees, the
consequences would be disastrous. A roster-point
promotee in the graduate stream would reach the
4th level by the time he attains the age of 45 years.
At the age of 49, he would reach the highest level
and stay there for nine years. On the other hand, the
general merit promotee would reach the 3rd level out
of 6 levels at the age of 56 and by the time, he gets
eligibility to the 4th level, he would have retired from
service. The petitioners say that the consequences of
the impugned 85th Amendment which provides for
reservation in promotion, with consequential
seniority, would result in reverse discrimination in
the percentage of representation of the reserved
category officers in the higher cadre.
***
107. It is important to bear in mind the nature of
constitutional amendments. They are curative by
nature. Article 16(4) provides for reservation for
Backward Classes in cases of inadequate
representation in public employment. Article 16(4) is
enacted as a remedy for the past historical
discriminations against a social class. The object in
enacting the enabling provisions like Articles 16(4),
16(4-A) and 16(4-B) is that the State is empowered
to identify and recognise the compelling interests. If
the State has quantifiable data to show
backwardness and inadequacy then the State can
make reservations in promotions keeping in mind
maintenance of efficiency which is held to be a
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 84 of 116
constitutional limitation on the discretion of the State
in making reservation as indicated by Article 335.
As stated above, the concepts of efficiency,
backwardness, inadequacy of representation are
required to be identified and measured. That
exercise depends on availability of data. That
exercise depends on numerous factors. It is for this
reason that enabling provisions are required to be
made because each competing claim seeks to
achieve certain goals. How best one should optimise
these conflicting claims can only be done by the
administration in the context of local prevailing
conditions in public employment. This is amply
demonstrated by the various decisions of this Court
discussed hereinabove. Therefore, there is a basic
difference between ―equality in law‖ and ―equality in
fact‖ (see Affirmative Action by William Darity). If
Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) flow from Article 16(4)
and if Article 16(4) is an enabling provision then
Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) are also enabling
provisions. As long as the boundaries mentioned in
Article 16(4), namely, backwardness, inadequacy
and efficiency of administration are retained in
Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) as controlling factors,
we cannot attribute constitutional invalidity to these
enabling provisions. However, when the State fails
to identify and implement the controlling factors then
excessiveness comes in, which is to be decided on
the facts of each case. In a given case, where
excessiveness results in reverse discrimination, this
Court has to examine individual cases and decide
the matter in accordance with law. This is the theory
of ―guided power‖. We may once again repeat that
equality is not violated by mere conferment of power
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 85 of 116
but it is breached by arbitrary exercise of the power
conferred.
108. Applying the above tests to the proviso to Article 335
inserted by the Constitution (Eighty-second
Amendment) Act, 2000 we find that the said proviso
has a nexus with Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B).
Efficiency in administration is held to be a
constitutional limitation on the discretion vested in
the State to provide for reservation in public
employment. Under the proviso to Article 335, it is
stated that nothing in Article 335 shall prevent the
State to relax qualifying marks or standards of
evaluation for reservation in promotion. This proviso
is also confined only to members of SCs and STs.
This proviso is also conferring discretionary power
on the State to relax qualifying marks or standards
of evaluation. Therefore, the question before us is—
whether the State could be empowered to relax
qualifying marks or standards for reservation in
matters of promotion. In our view, even after
insertion of this proviso, the limitation of overall
efficiency in Article 335 is not obliterated. Reason is
that ―efficiency‖ is a variable factor. It is for the State
concerned to decide in a given case, whether the
overall efficiency of the system is affected by such
relaxation. If the relaxation is so excessive that it
ceases to be qualifying marks then certainly in a
given case, as in the past, the State is free not to
relax such standards. In other cases, the State may
evolve a mechanism under which efficiency, equity
and justice, all three variables, could be
accommodated. Moreover, Article 335 is to be read
with Article 46 which provides that the State shall
promote with special care the educational and
economic interests of the weaker sections of the
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 86 of 116
people, and in particular, of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from
social injustice. Therefore, where the State finds
compelling interests of backwardness and
inadequacy, it may relax the qualifying marks for
SCs/STs. These compelling interests however have
to be identified by weighty and comparable data.
109. In conclusion, we reiterate that the object behind the
impugned constitutional amendments is to confer
discretion on the State to make reservations for
SCs/STs in promotions subject to the circumstances
and the constitutional limitations indicated above.
***
121. The impugned constitutional amendments by which
Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) have been inserted flow
from Article 16(4). They do not alter the structure of
Article 16(4). They retain the controlling factors or
the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness and
inadequacy of representation which enables the
States to provide for reservation keeping in mind the
overall efficiency of the State administration under
Article 335. These impugned amendments are
confined only to SCs and STs. They do not obliterate
any of the constitutional requirements, namely,
ceiling limit of 50% (quantitative limitation), the
concept of creamy layer (qualitative exclusion), the
sub-classification between OBCs on one hand and
SCs and STs on the other hand as held in Indra
Sawhney, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, the concept of
post-based roster with inbuilt concept of replacement
as held in R.K. Sabharwal, (1995) 2 SCC 745.
122. We reiterate that the ceiling limit of 50%, the concept
of creamy layer and the compelling reasons, namely,
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 87 of 116
backwardness, inadequacy of representation and
overall administrative efficiency are all constitutional
requirements without which the structure of equality
of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse.
123. However, in this case, as stated above, the main
issue concerns the ―extent of reservation‖. In this
regard the State concerned will have to show in each
case the existence of the compelling reasons,
namely, backwardness, inadequacy of
representation and overall administrative efficiency
before making provision for reservation. As stated
above, the impugned provision is an enabling
provision. The State is not bound to make
reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotions.
However, if they wish to exercise their discretion
and make such provision, the State has to collect
quantifiable data showing backwardness of the
class and inadequacy of representation of that class
in public employment in addition to compliance with
Article 335. It is made clear that even if the State
has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State
will have to see that its reservation provision does
not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling
limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend
the reservation indefinitely.
124. Subject to the above, we uphold the constitutional
validity of the Constitution (Seventy-seventh
Amendment) Act, 1995; the Constitution (Eighty-first
Amendment) Act, 2000; the Constitution (Eighty-
second Amendment) Act, 2000 and the Constitution
(Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001.‖
3.3. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Jarnail Singh Vs.
Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCR 663 refused to
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 88 of 116
refer M. Nagaraj (supra) to larger bench by recording
thus:
―1. The present group of cases arises out of two
reference orders— the first by a two-Judge Bench
referred to in a second reference order, dated
15.11.2017, which is by a three-Judge Bench, which
has referred the correctness of the decision in M.
Nagaraj Vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212,
(―Nagaraj‖), to a Constitution Bench.
***
21. Thus, we conclude that the judgment in Nagaraj
(supra) does not need to be referred to a seven–
Judge Bench. However, the conclusion in Nagaraj
(supra) that the State has to collect quantifiable data
showing backwardness of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes, being contrary to the nine-
Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India
(Indra Sawhney 1), (1992) Suppl. 3 SCC 217 =
(1992) 2 Suppl. SCR 454 is held to be invalid to this
extent.‖
3.4. In Pravakar Mallick Vs. State of Odisha, (2020) 5 SCR
222 it has been observed as follows:
―12. In view of the judgments as referred above, in this
case, it is to be noticed that after Constitution
(Eighty-Fifth) Amendment Act, 2001, amending
Article 16(4A) of the Constitution which enabled the
State to extend the benefit of promotion with
consequential seniority by examining the adequacy
of representation to scheduled castes and scheduled
tribes in the State services, the State of Orissa has
not made any provision, either by way of legislation
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 89 of 116
or by an executive order, to extend such benefit in
the Class-I Services. The advocate for State
specifically admitted that the Govt. has not issued
any executive order or has passed any legislation.
The Government Resolution dated 20.03.2002 is
issued merely based on the instructions issued by
the Government of India, without examining the
adequacy of representation in posts. As is evident
from the order of the High Court, the State in its
counter affidavit has taken the stand that there is no
necessity for bringing out any law to extend the
benefit of seniority for those who are promoted in
reserved vacancies. Government Resolution dated
20.03.2002 can neither be termed as law made in
exercise of enabling power of the State under Article
16(4A), nor does it satisfy the parameters laid down
in the various decisions of this Court. The Resolution
has no legal basis. The Seniority/Gradation List
dated 16.05.2001 of OAS-I (JB) was prepared
correctly by following the ratio laid down by this
Court and in absence of any law or decision by way
of executive order based on acceptable material for
conferring additional benefit of consequential
seniority, the Gradation List dated 03.03.2008 was
prepared by altering the positions which were
maintained in the List dated 16.05.2001. While it is
open for the State to confer benefit even through an
executive order by applying mandatory requirements
as contemplated under Article 16(4A) but the
Resolution dated 20.03.2002 is merely issued by
referring to the instructions of the Union of India
without examining the adequacy of representation in
promotional posts, as held by this Court.
13. Further, the submission of the learned counsel— Sri
A. Subba Rao— that the benefit of reservation in
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 90 of 116
promotion is given in the services of OAS-I for
scheduled caste and scheduled tribe officers as per
Section 10 of Orissa Act 38 of 1975, but same
cannot be countenanced for the reason that such Act
was enacted by the State of Orissa in the year 1975
but no provision is brought to our notice in such Act
for giving the benefit of seniority for the promotees
who were promoted in reserved vacancies. In
absence of any provision in the said Act for
conferring the benefit of seniority, and in absence of
any amendment after Constitution (Eighty-Fifth)
Amendment Act of 2001, by which Article 16(4A)
was amended, benefit of seniority cannot be
extended relying on Section 10 of the Act. In view of
the stand of the respondent-State in the counter
affidavit filed in the writ petition and further in view
of the submission made by the learned counsel for
the State of Orissa that no benefit of seniority was
extended by any State Act or by any executive order
by examining adequate representation in terms of
Article 16(4A) of the Constitution, we do not find any
merit in this appeal so as to interfere with the well
reasoned judgment of the High Court. The judgment
of this Court rendered in the case of Jarnail Singh,
(2018) 10 SCC 396 relied on by the learned counsel
for the appellants also would not take any further
the case of the appellants. In the said judgment also
for giving the benefit of promotion with consequential
seniority, the need to examine adequate
representation in posts in terms of the judgment of
this Court in the case of M. Nagaraj, (2006) 8 SCC
212 is maintained. As such, the said judgment
would not render any assistance for the case of
appellants.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 91 of 116
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed
with no order as to costs.‖
3.5. This Court is also taken to have regard to Union of India
Vs. G. Kiran, (2026) 1 SCR 141 which was rendered in
the context of appointments and entry into the
Government Service, in contrast with the scope of
consideration for promotion vis-a-vis reserved candidate
to be adjusted against unreserved posts. In the said
reported case it has been stated thus:
―32. Similarly, this court in Niravkumar Dilipbhai
Makwana Vs. Gujarat Public Service Commission
(2019) 9 SCR 47 while considering an identical
factual situation involving a circular barring
consideration of reserved category candidates on
unreserved posts observed as under:
‗22. Article 16(4) of the Constitution is an enabling
provision empowering the State to make any
provision or reservation of appointments or
posts in favour of any backward class of
citizens which in the opinion of the State is not
adequately represented in the service under
the State. It is purely a matter of discretion of
the State Government to formulate a policy for
concession, exemption, preference or relaxation
either conditionally or unconditionally in favour
of the backward classes of citizens. The
reservation being the enabling provision, the
manner and the extent to which reservation is
provided has to be spelled out from the orders
issued by the Government from time to time.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 92 of 116
***
23. In the instant case, the State Government has
framed policy for the grant of reservation in
favour of SC/ST and OBC by the Circulars
dated 21.01.2000 and 23.07.2004. The State
Government has clarified that when a relaxed
standard is applied in selecting a candidate for
SC/ST, SEBC category in the age-limit,
experience, qualification, permitting number of
chances in the written examination, etc., then
candidate of such category selected in the said
manner, shall have to be considered only
against his/her reserved post. Such a
candidate would be deemed as unavailable for
consideration against unreserved post.
***
34. There is also no merit in the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant that
relaxation in age at the initial qualifying stage
would not fall foul of the Circulars dated
29.01.2000 and 23.07.2004. The distinction
sought to be drawn between the preliminary
and final examination is totally misconceived.
It is evident from the advertisement that a
person who avails of an age relaxation at the
initial stage will necessarily avail of the same
relaxation even at the final stage. We are of the
view that the age relaxation granted to the
candidates belonging to SC/ST and SEBC
category in the instant case is an incident of
reservation under Article 16(4) of the
Constitution of India.‘
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 93 of 116
The Court affirming the proposition of law stated
that once relaxation has been taken by a reserved
category candidate, they cannot be considered for
unreserved vacancies. Inescapably, the aforesaid
judgement also strengthens the view taken by us
hereinabove interpreting the rules that if a reserved
category candidate takes benefit of relaxation
though at initial stage, it will effectively amount to
taking relaxation even at the final stage of the
selection process because without giving relaxation
to him, he was not in a position to participate in the
Main examination and to set forth his claim of cadre
allocation.
33. Very recently in Union of India Vs. Sajib Roy, (2025)
9 SCR 542, this court had the occasion to deal with
a similar factual matrix as observed hereunder:
‗32. On an analysis of the aforecited cases, we
summarise as follows:
Whether a reserved candidate who has availed
relaxation in fees/upper age limit to participate
in open competition with general candidates
may be recruited against unreserved seats
would depend on the facts of each case. That
is to say, in the event there is no embargo in
the recruitment rules/employment notification,
such reserved candidates who have scored
higher than the last selected unreserved
candidate shall be entitled to migrate and be
recruited against unreserved seats. However, if
an embargo is imposed under relevant
recruitment rules, such reserved candidates
shall not be permitted to migrate to general
category seats.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 94 of 116
***
33. Accordingly, we hold as the respondents-writ
petitioners had availed concession of age for
participating in the recruitment process, in the
teeth of office memorandum dated 01.07.1998,
the High Court was wrong in applying the ratio
in Jitendra Kumar (supra) and permitting them
to be considered for appointment in the
unreserved category. Consequently, we set
aside the common impugned judgment and
order dated 12.10.2018 and order dated
26.02.2019 and allow the appeals. Pending
application(s) if any, stand disposed of.‘
34. At this stage, pertinently the judgements relied upon
by the learned senior counsel for Respondent No.1 in
their support are necessarily required to be
appreciated. In Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of
U.P., (2010) 1 SCR 325, this court while considering
whether an OBC candidate who applied exercising
his option as a reserved category candidate, would
be eligible to be considered against an unreserved
vacancy, if he secures more marks than the last
candidate in general category. Nonetheless, in the
said case, this court was considering the issue in
reference to instructions issued by the State of Uttar
Pradesh dated 25.03.1994 which specifically
provided for migration of reserved category
candidates to unreserved vacancies despite they
having availed any facility or relaxation (like
relaxation in age limit) available to reserved
category. Therefore, it is distinguishable on facts of
the present appeals.‖
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 95 of 116
3.6. In order to appreciate core issue involved in the matters
of adjustment of unreserved vacancies, regard may be
had to following observations made in The West Bengal
State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd Vs. Dipendu
Biswas, (2026) 4 SCR 600:
―20. In view of the multifaceted nature of reservation in
India, a unique service law jurisprudence spurred by
Constitutional mandate has emerged. Reservations
have been classified into two categories, namely,
vertical and horizontal, with respect to which certain
judicial norms have evolved through a series of
landmark decisions. The definitions and
interrelationship between the two kinds of
reservations have been succinctly described in the
landmark case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India,
(1992) Supp. 2 SCR 454 = (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217,
in the following words:
‗812. *** the reservations in favour of Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward
classes [under Article 16(4)] may be called
vertical reservations whereas reservations in
favour of physically handicapped [under clause
(1) of Article 16] can be referred to as horizontal
reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across
the vertical reservations— that is called inter-
locking reservations. To be more precise,
suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in
favour of physically handicapped persons; this
would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of
Article 16. The persons selected against this
quota will be placed in the appropriate
category; if he belongs to S.C. category he will
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 96 of 116
be placed in that quota by making necessary
adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to open
competition (O.C.) category, he will be placed in
that category by making necessary
adjustments. Even after providing for these
horizontal reservations, the percentage of
reservations in favour of backward class of
citizens remains— and should remain— the
same. ***‘
21. In respect of vertical reservation, the social reserved
category posts are to be filled by the candidates
belonging to that social category only and not by
others. However, with reference to the Unreserved or
Open category posts, there is no such restrictions as
it could be filled up by anyone from any category
and there could be movement from one reserved
category to the Unreserved category based on merit,
which is called mobility in reservation. This
movement from a reserved category to the
unreserved, however, will not affect the quota for the
reserved category. This principle has been indicated
by this Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) in the
following words:
―811. In this connection it is well to remember that
the reservations under Article 16(4) do not
operate like a communal reservation. It may
well happen that some members belonging to,
say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open
competition field on the basis of their own
merit; they will not be counted against the
quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will
be treated as open competition candidates.‘
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 97 of 116
22. This legal position pertaining to social (vertical)
reservation, mobility and special (horizontal)
reservation has taken firm roots and has been
restated in clear terms in the case of Saurav Yadav
Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 542 as follows:
―59. The features of vertical reservations are:
59.1. They cannot be filled by the open category, or
categories of candidates other than those
specified and have to be filled by candidates of
the social category concerned only
(SC/ST/OBC).
59.2. Mobility (―migration‖) from the reserved
(specified category) to the unreserved (open
category) slot is possible, based on meritorious
performance.
59.3. In case of migration from reserved to open
category, the vacancy in the reserved category
should be filled by another person from the
same specified category, lower in rank.
59.4. If the vacancies cannot be filled by the
specified categories due to shortfall of
candidates, the vacancies are to be ―carried
forward‖ or dealt with appropriately by rules.
60. Horizontal reservations on the other hand, by
their nature, are not inviolate pools or carved in
stone. They are premised on their overlaps and
are ―interlocking‖ reservations [The expression
used by B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J., in Indra
Sawhney Vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3)
SCC 217. As a sequel, they are to be calculated
concurrently and along with the inviolate
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 98 of 116
―vertical‖ (or ―social‖) reservation quotas, by
application of the various steps laid out with
clarity in para 21.3. The first rule that applies
to filling horizontal reservation quotas is one of
adjustment i.e. examining whether on merit
any of the horizontal categories are adjusted in
the merit list in the open category, and then, in
the quota for such horizontal category within
the particular specified/social reservation.
23. In the horizontal reservation there is also the concept
of overall reservation and compartmental horizontal,
which has been explained in Anil Kumar Gupta v.
State of U.P., (1995) Supp. 2 SCR 396 = (1995) 5
SCC 173 in the following manner:
‗15. On a careful consideration of the revised
notification of 17.12.1994 and the
aforementioned corrigendum issued by the
Lucknow University, we are of the opinion that
in view of the ambiguous language employed
therein, it is not possible to give a definite
answer to the question whether the horizontal
reservations are overall reservations or
compartmentalised reservations. We may
explain these two expressions. Where the seats
reserved for horizontal reservations are
proportionately divided among the vertical
(social) reservations and are not inter-
transferable, it would be a case of
compartmentalised reservations. We may
illustrate what we say: take this very case; out
of the total 746 seats, 112 seats (representing
fifteen per cent) should be filled by special
reservation candidates; at the same time, the
social reservation in favour of Other Backward
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 99 of 116
Classes is 27% which means 201 seats for
OBCs; if the 112 special reservation seats are
also divided proportionately as between OC,
OBC, SC and ST, 30 seats would be allocated
to the OBC category; in other words, thirty
special category students can be
accommodated in the OBC category; but say
only ten special reservation candidates
belonging to OBC are available, then these ten
candidates will, of course, be allocated among
OBC quota but the remaining twenty seats
cannot be transferred to OC category (they will
be available for OBC candidates only) or for
that matter, to any other category; this would
be so whether requisite number of special
reservation candidates (56 out of 373) are
available in OC category or not; the special
reservation would be a watertight compartment
in each of the vertical reservation classes (OC,
OBC, SC and ST). As against this, what
happens in the overall reservation is that while
allocating the special reservation students to
their respective social reservation category, the
overall reservation in favour of special
reservation categories has yet to be honoured.
This means that in the above illustration, the
twenty remaining seats would be transferred
to OC category which means that the number
of special reservation candidates in OC
category would be 56 + 20 = 76. Further, if no
special reservation candidate belonging to SC
and ST is available then the proportionate
number of seats meant for special reservation
candidates in SC and ST also get transferred to
OC category. The result would be that 102
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 100 of 116
special reservation candidates have to be
accommodated in the OC category to complete
their quota of 112. The converse may also
happen, which will prejudice the candidates in
the reserved categories. It is, of course, obvious
that the inter se quota between OC, OBC, SC
and ST will not be altered.‘
24. In the present case, though the reservation pattern
as indicated in the advertisement is of
compartmentalised reservation, it may not be
necessary to dwell on that aspect much further, as
the issue involved in the present case is only about
the mobility of a PWD-LV candidate from a reserved
category of OBC-A to the Unreserved horizontal
category of UR(PWD-LV).‖
4. With the above backdrop, in W.A. No.468 of 2026, the
following questions are posed for adjudication:
a. Whether the appellants who were initially
appointed in reserved category and availed
subsequent promotion in reserved category can
now be promoted against the unreserved
vacancies?
b. Whether the clarification dated 06.05.2024 is in
consonance with R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of
Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 1371 and other subsequent
judgments rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
of India?
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 101 of 116
c. Whether in absence of quantifiable data in terms of
Article 16(4A) as held by the Hon ‟ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of M. Nagaraj Vs. Union of
India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 and Pravakar Mallick Vs.
State of Odisha, AIR 2020 SC 2122, can reserved
category candidate be promoted against the post
meant for unreserved, particularly in the State of
Odisha?
d. Whether any circular or executive instruction can
supersede the mandate as required under the
Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India?
e. Whether a judgment passed by the co-ordinate
bench ignoring the law laid down by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India is a binding precedent
under Article 141 of India?
5. Taking the issue at Question No.(c) above first in the
considered opinion of this Court would suffice to test the
correctness of the view expressed by the learned Single
Judge.
5.1. Seniority of an employee is one of the criteria for
promotion. The employee/candidate coming under the
zone of consideration has promotional avenue
irrespective of his/her category. It is vehemently argued
that since merit-cum-seniority is vital consideration for
promotion, merit is required to be assessed in
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 102 of 116
accordance with the entries in the CCR of such
employee. Seniority could be ascertained from the
gradation list maintained by the department concerned.
What is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsels is
that after taking cognizance of legal perspective laid
down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in B K
Pavitra Vs. Union of India (2017) 4 SCC 620 = (2017) 1
SCR 631 and B K Pavitra Vs. Union of India, (2019) 7 SCR
1086 the learned Single Judge has proceeded
erroneously to hold that ―reserved category candidates
are not eligible to get the benefit of promotion after getting
the benefit of promotion as per the roster point so fixed
and decided in the case of R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of
Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 = (1995) 2 SCR 35. Accordingly,
impugned communication issued by opposite party No.3
on 06.05.2024 in permitting scheduled caste and
scheduled tribe candidates to get the benefit of promotion
against unreserved vacancies on own merit is not
sustainable in the eye of law‖. Such perception of the
learned Single Judge is stated to be on a misconceived
notion on the basis of the fact admitted in the case of
Pravakar Mallick Vs. State of Odisha, (2020) 5 SCR 222 to
the extent that the State of Odisha had no quantifiable
data collected to ascertain the adequacy/inadequacy of
representation of scheduled tribe and scheduled caste
candidates in any post.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 103 of 116
5.2. In course of hearing, this Court was brought to the
notice the following Order issued by the Tribal Welfare
Department:
―Tribal Welfare Department
ORDER
The 15th March 1994
S.R.O. No.244/1994—
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(2) of
Section 4 of the Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts
and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes)
Act, 1975 (Orissa Act 38 of 1975) and in supersession of
the order of the Government of Orissa in the erstwhile
Harijan & Tribal Welfare Department No.3989, dated the
15th February 1983, the State Government do hereby
determine that the reservation of vacancies in posts and
services in the case of initial recruitment as well as
promotion—
(i) for the Scheduled Castes shall be at 16.25 per cent;
and
(ii) for the Scheduled Tribes shall be at 22.50 per cent of
the total number of vacancies.
[No.9144-Emp.(V)-18/94-(T.W.)]
By order of the Governor
M. K. PURKAIT
Commissioner-cum-Secretary
to Goverrnment ‖
5.3. It may be worthwhile to appreciate the argument
advanced by the Senior Advocates for the appellants that
the learned Single Judge has returned a finding that it
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 104 of 116
was only the General Administration and Public
Grievances Department, Government of Odisha which
being the competent authority can issue clarification
relating to interpretation of the rules contained under
the Odisha Civil Services (Criteria for Promotion) Rules,
1992, is an incorrect approach. This apart, the Odisha
Engineering Service (Method of Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012, and the Odisha
Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975 are
also to be harmoniously construed juxtaposed with the
provisions contained in the Odisha Civil Services
(Criteria for Promotion) Rules, 1992. This Court finds
force in such submission and in any view of the matter,
the General Administration and Public Grievances
Department, Government of Odisha, on 10.04.2023 has
elucidated by way of a clarification taking into account
the Orissa Civil Services (Zone of Consideration for
Promotion) Rules, 1988 as also the Odisha Civil Services
(Criteria for Promotion) Rules, 1992 referring to a query
by the Water Resources Department. Relevant portion of
said clarification as enclosed to W.A. No.468 of 2026 at
Annexure-15 is reproduced herein below:
―Government of Odisha
General Administration and
Public Grievances Department
No.10094/GAD-SC-GCS-0064-2023/Gen. Bhubaneswar,
Dated the 10
th April, 2023
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 105 of 116
To
The Special Secretary to Government,
Water Resources Department.
Sub: Clarification on ‗zone of consideration and criteria for
promotion ‗for compliance of court orders passed in
favour of Assistant Engineers (Civil) belonging to
Scheduled Caste Category of this Department
regarding their promotion to the rank of Assistant
Executive Engineer (Civil) against unreserved
vacancy on merit-cum-seniority basis.
Sir,
In inviting reference to your Letter No.3821/WR,
dated 13.02 2023 on the subject cited above, I am
directed to clarify the following points:
Sl.
No.
Question Clarification
3 A detailed
description on
‗own merit by
direct
recruitment
and own merit
by promotion‘
and how to
determine the
merit between
two employees:
i) When they
belong to
same batch
in same
grade i.e.,
In this respect, the considered
views of Law Department has
been received as at (NIL
Noting 9-10, Page1) which is
reproduced below:
i) The reserved category
officers who have availed
reservation in
appointment and falling
in seniority/merit above
the last unreserved
candidate could be
promoted against
unreserved vacancy
treating them as ‗own
merit‘.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 106 of 116
one
employee
belonging
to SC/ST
category
appointed
against UR
vacancy
and placed
above
another
employee
belonging
to General
Caste
category
appointed
against UR
vacancy.
ii) When they
belong to
two
different
batches in
same
grade i.e.,
one
employee
belonging
to SC/ST
category
appointed
against
SC/ST
vacancy
ii) Scheduled Caste/
Scheduled Tribe
candidates appointed on
their own merit can be
considered for promotion
and adjusted against the
unreserved vacancies.
Similarly, SC/ST
candidates who have
availed reservation in
appointment and falling
in seniority/merit above
the last unreserved
candidate could be
promoted against
unreserved vacancy.
iii) Senior reserved category
candidates (not appointed
on their own merit) in the
gradation would be
considered in zone of
consideration for
unreserved vacancies.
It is mentioned here that
where junior vertical
reservation candidates like
SEBC, Ex-Servicemen &
General R.A. appointees (who
are Junior in feeder Cadre to
SC & ST candidates) avail UR
posts in promotion. Now it is
prudent enough to say the
senior/merit SC & ST
candidates can avail the UR
post in promotion because UR
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 107 of 116
from earlier
batch and
placed
above
another
employee
belonging
to General
Caste
category
appointed
against UR
vacancy
from later
batch.
is not a category in itself and
it is open to all the so-called
reserved categories, even an
SC/ST/OBC candidate can
be considered under the
unreserved post on his/her
own merit/seniority.
It is well articulated in
Criteria for Promotion Rules,
1992, that:
(a) All promotions to the
posts or grades of
different Services/Civil
posts under the State
Government shall be
made by selection;
(b) Selection for such
promotion shall be made
on the basis of merit and
suitability in all respects
with due regard to
seniority and the names
of persons included in the
select list shall be
arranged in order of
seniority in the feeder
service or grade:
Provided that any junior
officer of exceptional merit
and suitability may be
assigned a place higher than
his seniors and in such cases
the assignment of higher
position to the junior officer
shall be limited to the same
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 108 of 116
batch or year of allotment
except where an officer of the
earlier batch; or year of
allotment is found unsuitable
for promotion.
5.4. It is highlighted that Annexure-21 enclosed with the writ
appeal, bearing W.A. No.446 of 2026, would indicate
that a ―Report on quantification of data regarding the SCs
and STs with regard to inadequate representation in
Government Services and Overall Administrative
efficiency of Government machineries in the Light of
Reservations in Government Services in Odisha‖ was
published by the Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste
Development Department, Government of Odisha on
26.06.2019. It is abundantly unequivocal from Chapter-
I: Introduction of said Report that:
―1.1 Background:
This report is prepared by the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Government of
Odisha for submission to General Administration
Department pursuant to the judgment dt. 26.09.2018 of
Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No.30621 of 2011 filed by Jarnail Singh and others Vrs
Lachhmi Narain Gupta & others along with SLP (C) No.
31735 of 2011 and SLP(C) No. 22985 of 2018 and a
number of similar Leave Petitions clubbed together which
gave the ruling that the 77th & 85th Constitutional
amendments are constitutionally valid and that these are
enabling provisions and States will have to make out a
case for providing reservations in promotion with
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 109 of 116
consequential seniority based on quantifiable data that
such reservation became necessary on account of
inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes/
Scheduled Tribes in a particular class or classes of posts
without affecting the general efficiency of service as
mandated under Article 335 of the Constitution. In the
light of such a judgment pronounced by the Hon ‘ble
Supreme Court, it is incumbent on the part of the State
Government to prepare a report indicating the following
two components:
I. Quantifiable data indicating inadequacy of
representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes in Government Services.
II. Observations on overall Administrative Efficiency of
Government is Machinery in the Light of
Reservations in Government Services in Odisha.
Government of Odisha has made an effort to come up with
a report basing on the data provided by various
Government Departments as on 31.03.2015 in respect of
the above two components which was collected in
compliance with the requirement of the judgement of the
Hon‘ble Supreme Court in M. Nagraj case versus Union of
India & Others.‖
5.5. A reading of the said report reveals that relevant data
were compiled from census records, statistical
handbooks, National Family Health Survey Data,
National Sample Surveys, and various other prominent
publications to outline the demography of the State of
Odisha; but so far as data pertaining to representation of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Government
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 110 of 116
Services and particularly in promotional posts is
concerned, information from 42 Administrative
Departments including Odisha Legislative Assembly
Secretariat and 137 Heads of the Departments (including
12 composite Directorates/Offices) was sought for.
Similarly, to examine the administrative efficiency of
Government machinery in the light of reservations in
Government Services in Odisha, separate format was
designed and information from various Administrative
Departments was also sought for.
5.6. The Report further makes it clear that more than 93%
Departments have furnished full data and 5.59 percent
Departments have submitted partial data in respect of
filling up of posts which was fairly statistically
representative. Inferences could be drawn therefrom.
100% data on representation of ST & SC communities in
their earmarked posts was not captured in the said
report since around 5.59% Departments have submitted
only partial data. Nonetheless, for preparing a State-wide
Report of this nature, having more than 90% of the
available data, made the report fairly representative of
the factual position.
5.7. After collation of data from different sources and
determining the ratio of population taking into account
demographic criteria, at paragraph 6.4 the following
conclusion has been recorded:
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 111 of 116
―6.4 Conclusion:
Thus, from the above analysis of facts and statistics, it is
clear that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
suffer from a large number of socio-economic disabilities
and they have inadequate representation in Government
services both in direct recruitment posts and also in the
promotional posts. However, the data collected from the
administrative departments further shows that there is no
adverse impact of representation of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in Government jobs, particularly in case
of promotional posts. In other words, reservation of posts
has no bearing on the administrative inefficiency in the
State of Odisha as is revealed from the available data.‖
5.8. Annexures appended to above Report would transpire
inter alia quantifiable data of different categories and
percentage of representation in the sanctioned posts.
6. Having thus considered the material made available on
record, on examination of the decision rendered by the
learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 22.01.2026
reported at 2026 ILR-CUT ONLINE 1303 it is glaring that
―Report on quantification of data regarding the SCs and
STs with regard to inadequate representation in
Government Services and Overall Administrative
efficiency of Government machineries in the Light of
Reservations in Government Services in Odisha‖ as
prepared by the ST and SC Development Department
could not be taken into consideration by the learned
Single Judge. On verification of record pertaining to
W.P.(C) No.13600 of 2025 (corresponding to W.A. No.446
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 112 of 116
of 2026), it is discernible that no such Report was
submitted before the learned Single Judge for
consideration.
6.1. Conjoint reading of Paragraph 9.3 and Paragraph 9.4 of
the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single
Bench seems to percolate that in absence of quantifiable
data, the Clarification dated 06.05.2024
9 issued by the
Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development,
Minorities and Backward Classes Welfare Department
cannot be sustained being contrary to the provisions
contained under Rule 6 of the Odisha Civil Services
9
Clarification dated 06.05.2024 stood thus:
―Government of Odisha
ST & SC Development, Minorities &
Backward Classes Welfare Department
***
No.9838/STSCD-RP-Policy-0012-2013/SSD Bhubaneswar, Dated 06.05.2 024
From
Ms. Roopa Roshan Sahoo, IAS
Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government
The Additional Chief Secretarieis/Principal Secretaries/
Commissioner-cum-Secretaries to Government
All Departments
Sub: Clartfication on the concept of ‗own merit‘ in direct recruitment/promotion
Madam/Sir,
In inviting a reference to the subject mentioned above, I am to say tha t a
clarification was sought from the Law Department with respect to the concept of
‗own merit‘ In promotion to the unreserved vacancies from among the reserved
category candidates in the gradation list. The Law Department, after taking into
consideration the various case matters has elucidated in detail the above point.
The detailed views of the Law Department issued on 27.02.2024 is en closed
herewith for inference, and necessary action of all Departments.
Further, DoPT, Government of India vide OM No.36012/16/2019-Estt. (Res.)
dated 12.04.2022 (copy enclosed) has clarified that in the judgment dated
28.01.2022 in the case of Jarnail Singh and Ors. Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and
Ors, which currently holds the field, the Supreme Court has set out conditions
that are to be satisfied by the Government in order to implement the policy of
reservation in promotions. The same has to be ensured before the DPC, by all the
Departments for avoiding any legal complications in future.
This is for your kind information and necessary action.
Yours faithfully,
Commissioner-cum-Secretary
to Government ‖
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 113 of 116
(Criteria for Promotion) Rules, 1992
10 as well as Article
154 and Article 162 of the Constitution of India and
having observed so, the learned Single Judge held the
impugned clarification issued on 06.05.2024 directed to
be followed as circulated by way of communication dated
27.02.2025 basing on the opinion of the Law
Department on 27.02.2024 is not tenable in the eye of
law and, quashed the same. Nevertheless, this Court, as
observed in the foregoing paragraphs that, the learned
Single Judge being not apprise of elaborate ―Report on
quantification of data regarding the SCs and STs with
regard to inadequate representation in Government
Services and Overall Administrative efficiency of
Government machineries in the Light of Reservations in
Government Services in Odisha‖ as prepared by the
Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes Development
Department on 26.06.2019, he had no occasion to deal
with the issue raised by the respective parties in proper
perspective. Therefore, this Court does perceive that the
appellants have made out a case for reconsideration of
the merit of the writ petition(s) afresh on each point.
7. It is emphasised at the Bar that the Odisha Reservation
of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975, is not under challenge.
10
Rule 6 of the Odisha Civil Services (Criteria for Promotion) Rules, 1992, reads as
follows:
―6. If any doubt arises on interpretation of any of the provisions of these
rules, it shall be referred to Government in General Administration
Department for final decision.‖
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 114 of 116
Further, the policy of promotion vis-a-vis Conditions of
Service Rules is unique for each of the Departments in
the Government and each case is required to be
considered on its own context and merit. To illustrate, it
is pointed out that the employees in W.A. No.46 of 2026
(relating to W.P.(C) No.13600 of 2025) are guided by the
Odisha District Revenue Service (Method of Recruitment
and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983, whereas the
employees in W.A. No.440 of 2026 are governed by the
Odisha Diploma Engineers‟ Service (Methods of
Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012. Under
the above premise, very many writ petitions involving
different departments having different sets of Conditions
of Service Rules could not have been disposed of by a
common judgment dated 22.01.2026. Therefore, the said
judgment deserves intervention.
8. In view of aforesaid discussions, it is not appropriate to
address all the points as posed by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respective parties as this Court
deems it proper to leave the same for fresh adjudication
as this Court is inclined to interfere with the judgment of
learned Single Judge bearing in mind the legal position
as settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India and
that the learned Single Judge did not have the occasion
to examine the effect and impact of ―Report on
quantification of data regarding the SCs and STs with
regard to inadequate representation in Government
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 115 of 116
Services and Overall Administrative efficiency of
Government machineries in the Light of Reservations in
Government Services in Odisha‖ as prepared by the
Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes Development
Department on 26.06.2019. Hence, it is felt apposite to
set aside the impugned judgment dated 22.01.2026 in
batch of matters being Hiranmayee Nayak Vs. State of
Odisha, W.P.(C) No.7674 of 2025, reported at 2026 ILR-
CUT ONLINE 1303, and this Court does so.
8.1. Having set aside the judgment dated 22.01.2026
rendered in W.P.(C) Nos.7674, 3289, 4527, 4707, 4709,
4928, 5063, 6555, 6661, 6663, 6687, 6691, 7129, 7901,
8372, 8380, 8382, 8510, 8573, 8627, 8720, 8739, 8875,
9265, 9277, 9291, 9296, 9397, 9643, 9789, 9985,
10042, 10105, 10223, 10224, 10721, 10923, 11039,
12454, 12973, 13367, 13600, 14016, 14228, 15864,
15998, 16104, 16316, 18943, 18965, 19487, 19512,
19884, 21084, 21393, 22005, 22656, 23002, 23166,
23781, 24202, 24631, 25482 & 27932 of 2025, vide
Hiranmayee Nayak Vs. State of Odisha, 2026 ILR-CUT
ONLINE 1303, it is requested that the learned Single
Judge may proceed with the hearing of the matters. It is
open for the appellants and the respondents to present
their cases independently and furnish documents and
papers which they wish to rely on to buttress their
contentions and arguments.
W.A. No.440 of 2026 and batch Page 116 of 116
8.2. As the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is
remitted, it is not felt prudent to delve further to answer
other questions as posed for adjudication by the
appellants. Parties are at liberty to raise all questions by
placing material particulars.
9. In the result, the writ appeals are allowed and the
matters in the writ petitions are remitted for
consideration afresh by the learned Single Judge.
Interlocutory Application(s), pending if any, shall also
stand disposed of. However, in the circumstances, there
shall be no order as to costs.
(HARISH TANDON )
CHIEF JUSTICE
(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 29
th October, 2026//Aswini/MRS/Laxmikant
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....