WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page1of15

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.9875 of 2016

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of

India.

***

Smt. Sabita Parida

… Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

State of Orissa & Others

… Opposite Parties.

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioners : Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties :Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.

(For the State)

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 06.02.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 26.02.2026

JUDGMENT

WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page2of15

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.—

1.This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner

praying for quashing the Office Order dated 06.05.2016 under

Annexure-10, which was passed/issued by the Collector-cum-

Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj (Opp.

Party No.2) disengaging the petitioner from Shikshya Sahayak

with effect from the forenoon of 19.04.2016.

2.The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which

prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, as per

advertisement of the Government for the selection of Shikshya

Sahayaks in Betnoti Block of Mayurbhanj District, the

petitioner along with others applied for the same. After taking

the application, mark sheets and other documents of the

petitioner into account, the Opp. Parties selected to the

petitioner as Shikshya Sahayak and then, as per the

guidelines of the Government, on proper execution of an

agreement on dated 22.03.2011 with the Collector-cum-Chief

Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj (Opp. Party

No.2), she (petitioner) was appointed as Shikshya Sahayak in

WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page3of15

Jalghera Primary School under Tarkani Gram Panchayat of

Betnoti Block in the District of Mayurbhanj.

Thereafter, as per the Office Order dated 31.03.2011 vide

Annexure-3, she (petitioner) worked as Shikshya Sahayak in

N.U.P.S, Barasahi. While she (petitioner) serving there as

Shikshya Sahayak, on dated 28.07.2011, she (petitioner)

received a letter from the Opp. Party No.3 (District Project

Coordinator, Sarba Sikhya Abhijan (SSA), District-

Mayurbhanj) that,

“she (petitioner) has been selected as Shikshya Sahayak

wrongly, because, there was wrong calculation of her marks

during selection process, for which, in the proceeding dated

14.04.2011, it was resolved by the members of the selection

committee to disengage her (petitioner), as, the marks of the

petitioner was not coming under the zone of selection on merit

and directed to the petitioner to reply on the same within 7

days.”

To which, the petitioner challenged by filing WP(C)

No.21265 of 2011, in which, an interim status quo order was

passed on dated 18.08.2011. For which, the petitioner

continued in her service as Shikshya Sahayak.

WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page4of15

The said WP(C) No.21265 of 2011 filed by the petitioner

was disposed of finally on 16.02.2016 directing the Opp. Party

No.3 (District Project Co-coordinator, Sarba Sikhya Abhijan

(SSA District-Mayurbhanj) to take decision independentlyin

that matter without being prejudiced by the decision of the

selection committee relating to the disengagement of the

petitioner by taking its own independent view.

Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted. In that enquiry,

the Opp. Party No.3 took the decision as per Annexure-9 as

follows:

“the petitioner was not eligible for selection and engagement as

Shikshya Sahayak, as she had secured 90.798% of marks and the

said mark of the petitioner was not coming within the zone of

selection on merit. Hence her selection as Shikshya Sahayak was

wrong and irregular. Therefore, I (Opp. Party No.3) am inclined to

conclude that, her engagement was illegal, unlawful and against the

law. Hence, she is liable for disengagement being appointed basing

on wrong BED marks.”

3.On the basis of the said enquiry report of Opp. Party

No.3 vide Annexure-9, the Opp. Party No.2 passed/issued

office order vide Annexure-10 on dated 06.05.2016 and

disengaged to the petitioner (Sabita Parida) from Shikshya

Sahayak w.e.f. forenoon of 19.04.2016 stating that, her

WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page5of15

engagement as Shikshya Sahayak was unlawful assigning

reasons that,

“she (petitioner-Sabita Parida) has secured 506 marks out

of 1200 in BA Examination. The percentage of marks of which

comes to 42.167%. Similarly in B.Ed. examination she has

secured 462 out of 950. The percentage of marks of which

comes to 48.631%. Accordingly, her total percentage of marks

comes to 90.798%. The cut of marks under BA B.Ed stream

under SEBC category was 107.688%. Similarly, the cut of

marks under BA B.Ed stream under SEBC (Women) category

was 96.076%.

In view of the above position, the petitioner securing total

90.798% of marks was not coming to the zone of selection

during the recruitment year 2010-11, but, somehow, she

managed to place her name in the final merit list of BA B.Ed

stream of SEBC category at SL. No.6 representing 662 marks

against B.Ed. examination instead of 462 marks actually

secured by her and got engagement as Shikshya Sahayak

unlawfully.”

4.To which, the petitioner challenged by filing this writ

petition praying for quashing the Annexure-10 i.e. to the order

WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page6of15

of her disengagement as Shikshya Sahayak on the ground

that, she (petitioner) had submitted all her documents relating

to her educational qualifications and mark sheets before the

selection authorities including the Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 as

per requirement and the Opp. Parties had verified her all

documents and mark sheets in her all examinations including

her B.Ed mark sheets and after proper verification, they (Opp.

Parties) were satisfied with the genuineness of the marks and

documents submitted by the petitioner and thereafter, they

(Opp. Parties) selected to the petitioner as Shikshya Sahayak

and then, they (Opp. Parties) appointed her as Shikshya

Sahayak in the school with effect from 22.03.2011 and

accordingly, she (petitioner) served as a Shikshya Sahayakfor

more than 5 years and during her incumbency as Shikshya

Sahayak, there is no adverse remark against her. She

(petitioner) has requisite qualifications to get appointment as

a Shikshya Sahayak. As such, in the selection process, the

petitioner neither had instigated the Opp. Parties i.e. selection

authorities nor she had suppressed any certificate or mark

sheet or had filed any false or manipulated mark sheets before

the selection authorities, but after proper verification of her all

WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page7of15

the documents, certificates and mark sheets, they (Opp.

Parties) had selected her (petitioner) as Shikshya Sahayak

and they had also appointed her as Sikhsya Sahayak by

issuing appointment order.

After giving appointment to the petitioner as Shikshya

Sahayak, the authorities i.e. Opp. Parties are estopped under

law to disengage her from Shikshya Sahayak on the ground

that, their selection to the petitioner as Shikshya Sahayak

was wrong.

For which, the Annexure-10 issued by the Opp. Party

No.2 for her disengagement from Shikshya Sahayak is liable

to be quashed.

5.The Opp. Party No.3 submitted affidavit without

disputing to the selection and appointment to the petitioner as

Shikshya Sahayak taking his stands in support of the

issuance of Annexure-10 that, during selection process, in

course of preparation of the provisional merit list, B.Ed marks

of the petitioner were wrongly entered and her total

percentage of marks were wrongly computed and the said

wrong computation of her B.Ed marks was detected

subsequently after the appointment of the petitioner as

WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page8of15

Shikshya Sahayak, for which, the petitioner was unlawfully

appointed as Shikshya Sahayak. Therefore, she (petitioner) is

liable to be disengaged to provide justice to the candidate

legally and lawfully entitled to get the same. Therefore, the

engagement of the petitioner as Shikshya Sahayak is contrary

to the provisions of law and she (petitioner) has no right to

challenge her disengagement. Therefore, the writ petitionfiled

by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

6.I have already heard from the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

7.As per the rival submissions of the learned counsels of

both the sides and on the basis of the writ petition, counter

and Annexures-9 & 10, the crux of this Writ Petition is that,

“Whether the disengagement of the petitioner from

Shikshya Sahayak by the selection authorities after

appointing her and allowing her to serve as Shikshya

Sahayak for a considerable period on the ground of

erroneous calculation of her B.Ed marks during selection

process by the selection authorities is sustainable under

law?”

8.It is the undisputed case of the parties that,

“the petitioner was selected by the Opp. Parties on

dated 22.03.2011 as per Annexure-1, on verification

of her educational certificates and mark sheets and

WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page9of15

she (petitioner) has served as Shikshya Sahayak

since 22.03.2011 to 05.05.2016 and she has been

disengaged as per Annexure-10 issued/passed by

the Opp. Party No.2 on dated 06.05.2016 on the

ground of wrong calculation of her B.Ed. marks by

the selection authorities, which was detected after

her appointment and during the continuation of her

service.”

9.When undisputedly, neither the petitioner was present at

the time of computation of her marks by the selection

authorities, nor she (petitioner) was a party to the

computation of her B.Ed. marks by the selection authorities,

rather she (petitioner) was appointed after the issuance of

joining letter by the Opp. Parties to her.

No allegation has been alleged by the Opp. Parties

against the petitioner about the suppression, non-disclosure

or manipulation of her marks sheets. The petitioner has no

contribution to the computation of the percentage of her

marks by the selection authorities.

10.When she (petitioner) was selected by the Opp. Parties

after proper verification of her all genuine documents,

certificates and mark sheets submitted by her (petitioner)as

per the requirements and when the Opp. Parties had prepared

WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page10of15

the merit list without any sort of involvement of the petitioner

for the preparation of the same, then, at this juncture, the

Opp. Parties are estopped under law to disengage her

(petitioner) subsequently after giving appointment to the

petitioner and after allowing her to serve as Shikshya

Sahayak on the plea that, their selection to the petitioner as

Shikshya Sahayak was wrong.

Because, they (Opp. Parties) are estopped under law to

approbate and reprobate at the same time, i.e. they (Opp.

Parties) cannot express at one hand that, their selection tothe

petitioner as Shikshya Sahayak was proper and, on the other

hand that, their selection to the petitioner as Shikshya

Sahayak was wrong/improper.

As such, approbation and reprobation is not permissible

under law. So, the Opp. Parties cannot take advantage of their

own wrong.

11.On this aspect the propositions of law has already been

clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of

the following decisions:

(A) In the cases between Radhey Shyam

Yadav & Another Etc. Vs. State of U.P. &

Othersreported in[2024] 1 S.C.R. 21 &

WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page11of15

Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary and Others vs.

State of U.P. and Others reported in 2025

SCC OnLine All 8077 that, when the

petitioners cannot not be held responsible for

an irregularity committed by the authorities in

computation of marks that too after the

petitioners were appointed following detailed

scrutiny of the records, then, their engagement

cannot be disengaged.

(B) In a case betweenPratima Sahoo Vs.

State of Orissa & Others decided in WPC

No.14057 of 2012 on 09.11.2020 that, the

marks of the petitioner were miscalculated by

the authorities-in-charge of the selection

procedure. As a result of the miscalculation, the

petitioner was held to be eligible to be

appointed as Sikhya Sahayak. The appointment

letter was issued in favour of the petitioner for

engagement as Sikhya Sahayak. The petitioner

had not misrepresented about the marks.

But, as per order dated 26.08.2008, the

petitioner was disengaged from the post of

Sikhya Sahayak. Once the State Government

has allowed the petitioner to believe that she

has qualified in the selection process and is

being appointed as Sikhya Sahayak, the district

administration/ State Government cannot deny

that she does not qualify for the post of Sikhya

Sahayak.

(C) In the cases between Rajanikanta

Priyadarshy vs Utkal University Rep.

Through Its Registrar and Others reported

in AIR 2015 (NOC) 346 (ORI.)that, the result

of +3 regular examination 2010 of the petitioner

having been published and on that basis, the

petitioner undergone higher studies and passed

in different courses, subsequently his initial

result cannot be cancelled on the ground that,

he has failed in the said examination.

(D)In a case between Bikash Mahalik Vs.

State of Odisha & Others reported in 2022

(I) ILR Cuttack 108that, the petitioner, while

continuing as Jr. Clerk, having completed

about one year and four months of service

WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page12of15

under opposite party no.3, all on a sudden,

opposite party no.3 issued show-cause notice

on dated 31.03.2015 that, as to why he shall

not be terminated from Government Service

stating that, practical skill test shall be

qualifying in nature and the marks awarded in

practical skill test should not be added to the

marks secured by the candidates in the written

test examination. The said show cause quashed.

(E)In a case betweenAmbika Prasad Mohanty

And Etc. vs Orissa Engineering College And

Anr.reportedin (1989) (1) OLR 440 that, a

student admitted after satisfying all the

qualifications. Subsequently, his admission is

cancelled and he cannot prosecute his studies

elsewhere. In that case, rule of estoppel is

applicable.

(F)In a case betweenDina Nath Pandey &

Others Vs. Adya Pandey reported in(2017)

(Supp.) Civ.C.C 307 (Delhi)that, no one can

take benefit of his own wrong.

(G)In a case betweenG. Vikram Kumar Vs.

State Bank of Hyderabad and Ors.reported

2023 (3) CCC 84 (SC) that, no one can be

permitted to get the benefit of his own wrong.

(H)In a case between Sandip Routray Vs.

Airport authority of India & another

reported 2010 (Supp.-I) OLR — 707 that , a

wrong doer is not entitled to take advantage of

his own wrong. (Para - 11)

(I)In a case betweenState of Orissa & Others

Vs. Mangalam Timber Products Limited

reported in 2003 (9) SCALE 578 that, State

cannot take advantage of his own omission or

fault.

(J)In a case betweenSalem Muslim Burial

Ground Protection Committee Vs. State of

Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported 2023 (2) CCC

215that, law does not permit a person to both

approbate and reprobate, as no party can

accept and reject the same instrument.

WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page13of15

12.Here in this matter at hand, when without alleging any

allegations by the Opp. Parties against the petitioner about

the practicing of any fraud, suppression of fact,

misrepresentation, instigation or manipulation for her

selection and appointment as Shikhsya Sahayak, the Opp.

Parties disengaged her (petitioner) as per Annexure-10, onthe

ground that, she (petitioner) was wrongly selected and

appointed by them (Opp. Parties) as Shikshya Sahayak, then,

at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciatedin

the ratio of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and

Apex Court, they (Opp. Parties) including the Opp. Party No.2

are estopped/precluded under law to take any advantage of

their own wrong, as the law does not permit the Opp. Parties

to approbate and reprobate at the same time i.e. at one hand

to say that, their selection and appoint to the petitioner as

Shikshya Sahayak was proper at the same time on the other

hand, to say that, their selection and appointment to the

petitioner as Shikshya Sahayak was wrong.

13.Therefore, by applying the principles of law enunciated in

the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to this matter at hand, it is

WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page14of15

held that, the disengagement of the petitioner as per

Annexures-9 & 10 from Shikshya Sahayak by the Opp. Parties

including Opp. Party No.2 is not sustainable under law. The

same are liable to be quashed.

14.As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the

petitioner. The same is to be allowed.

15.In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is

allowed.

16.The Annexures-9 & 10 issued by the Opp. Party Nos.3 &

2 to the petitioner for her disengagement from Shikshya

Sahayak are quashed.

When the Annexures-9 & 10 are quashed holding that,

the issuances of Annexures-9 & 10 relating to the

disengagement of the petitioner from Shikshya Sahayak were

not legal, then, it is deemed as per law about the continuation

of the petitioner as Shikshya Sahayak since her appointment

i.e. since 22.03.2011 without any disengagement for all

practical purposes for consideration of her regular

employment in the Department as per law and the guidelines

of the Government without any payment to her during the

WP(C) No.9875 of 2016 Page15of15

period since 06.05.2016 till this date of Judgment, during

which she (petitioner) has not worked.

The Opp. Parties are directed to allow her (petitioner) to

work since 27.02.2026 either as Sikshya Sahayaka or any

other post in respect of which, the Sikshya Sahayakas like the

petitioner have been allowed to work.

Free copies of this Judgment be supplied to the parties

as well as the learned counsels of both the sides immediately

for their information and necessary compliances.

17.As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is

disposed of finally.

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)

JUDGE

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

The 26 .02. 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak

Sr. Stenographer