MANASA RANJAN PRADHAN vs STATE OF ODISHA

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.35951 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
*
Petitioner
Manasa Ranjan Pradhan .......……

ERSUS
-V -
Opposite Parties
State of Odisha & Others ………..
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Akhand, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mr.Gyanaloka Mohanty, S.C.



P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing: 27.04.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 15.05.2026
J UDGMENT
Page 1 of 12

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 cancellation of the admission of the O.P. No.5 to the
M.Ed. course at Dibakar Patnaik Institute of Advanced Studies in
Education, Berhampur and to direct the O.P. Nos.1 to 4 to admit
the Petitioner in that seat or against any vacant seat on the basis
of the merit of the Petitioner.
2. The case of the Petitioner against the O.Ps in his writ
petition is that, in order to take admission into M.Ed. Course, he
(Petitioner) applied for the same on dated 10.04.2025 filling up
the Common Application Form (CAF) through Students Academic
Management System (SAMS) portal and then, he (Petitioner)
appeared the entrance test examination for the same on
04.06.2025 conducted by the Higher Education Department. The
result thereof was published on 01.08.2025, wherein, he
(Petitioner) had secured 57.50 per cent mark. For which, he
(Petitioner) must have been allowed to take admission at Dibakar
Patnaik Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Berhampur
(DPIASE, Berhampur) in the first preference, but, in regular
Page 2 of 12

selection list, he (Petitioner) was debarred to get a seat to take
admission on the basis of the cut-off mark. For which, the
Petitioner applied for taking admission in Phase-1 spot selection
scheduled to be held on 05.09.2025 and he was called for the
same by the DPIASE, Berhampur and in that spot selection, he
(Petitioner) along with 23 other students had participated. The
DPIASE, Berhampur admitted 16 students out of 19 seats and
arbitrarily kept 3 seats vacant citing the reasons that, the said 3
seats have been kept reserved for PwDs (Person with disabilities),
though, no PwD candidate was reported to participate in the said
spot selection. For which, the Petitioner did not get any seat to
take admission in M.Ed Course in DPIASE, Berhampur in spite
of the vacancy of 3 seats. Though, the SAMS portal shows the
rank of the Petitioner as 170, but, the DPIASE, Berhampur has
arbitrarily and illegally shown his rank as 174.
As per law, no reservation rule/policy is applicable in the
spot selection, but, the DPIASE, Berhampur did not follow the
same and kept 3 seats vacant for PwDs students/candidates.
Again, there was a notification on dated 13.10.2025 for spot
selection to fill up the vacancy of the above three seats of the
Page 3 of 12

DPIASE, Berhampur in M.Ed. Course. So, the Petitioner applied
for the same on 22.10.2025 and appeared before the DPIASE,
Berhampur on dated 28.10.2025, but, the DPIASE, Berhampur
published the merit list on 01.11.2025 giving admission to the
O.P. No.5 as PwD candidate and kept other two seats of that
course vacant for PwD candidates.
Though, the O.P. No.5 had secured only 28.75 per cent
marks and the Petitioner had secured 57.50 per cent marks, still
then, the DPIASE, Berhampur selected to the O.P. No.5 and
allowed the O.P. No.5 to take admission in M.Ed. Course applying
the reservation policy in the spot admission violating the
guidelines, even though, it has been categorically stated in the
guidelines that, there will not be any reservation in the spot
selection. For which, the action of the O.P. Nos.3 and 4 in
admitting the O.P. No.5 in M.Ed. Course applying the reservation
policy is illegal.
As per Paragraph No.8 in Page No.4 of the guidelines vide
Annexure-4, the selection of the candidates was required to be
done purely on the merit basis without application of any
Page 4 of 12

reservation policy for the same in the spot selection for
admission.
In the Paragraph No.5 of the guidelines vide notification
No.55055 dated 13.10.2025, it has been indicated that, the
selection of the applicants in the spot selection will be done
purely on merit basis without application of reservation policy for
the same.
When, the DPIASE, Berhampur did not admit the Petitioner
in M.Ed. Course in spite of his eligibility for the same and illegally
admitted to the O.P. No.5 in the spot selection applying the
reservation policy, then, he (Petitioner) submitted a
representation through registered post to the O.P. Nos.1 to 4
ventilating his all grievances, but, the O.P. Nos.1 to 4 did not pay
any heed to the same.
For which, without getting any way, the Petitioner filed this
writ petition against the O.P.s praying for cancellation of the
admission of the O.P. No.5 and to direct the O.P. Nos.1 to 4 to
admit him (Petitioner) in that seat or against any vacant seat, as
his merit is higher than the O.P. No.5 and no reservation policy is
Page 5 of 12

applicable for the admission of the O.P. No.5 in the spot selection
and to pass such other order, to which, he (Petitioner) is entitled
for.
3. Having been noticed in the writ petition, the O.P. Nos.1 & 2
and 3 & 4 submitted their counter-affidavits separately denying
the aforesaid allegations alleged by the Petitioner in the writ
petition.
4. The O.P. Nos.1 and 2 in their counter took their stands that,
as per the Information Brochure vide Annexure-C/3, 5 per cent of
the total seats are to be kept reserved for the students of
Disability and the remaining seats shall be for non-PwD category
namely UR, SC, ST and SEBC. The Petitioner belongs to non-PwD
category. The seats reserved for PwD shall be exclusively for PwD
candidates and the candidates belonging to the non-PwD
category like the Petitioner cannot be eligible to be considered for
admission against the seats reserved for PwDs. During spot
selection for admission, as one PwD candidate i.e. O.P. No.5 was
available, for which, he (O.P. No.5) was admitted. Therefore, 2
seats for PwD students were not filled up and the said two seats
were kept vacant for PwD students/candidates.
Page 6 of 12

The Petitioner sought for a direction from this Court
through this writ petition to admit him against the seat reserved
for PwD, though, he does not belong to PwD.
The benefit of reservation of 5 per cent for PwD
candidates/students is exclusively available for the said PwD
candidates/students as per the Information Brochure vide
Annexure-C/3. A candidate belonging to non-PwD category like
the Petitioner cannot as a matter of right claim the said seat,
which is kept reserved for PwD category. Therefore, as per law,
the Petitioner was/is not entitled to take admission, even, in the
spot selection against reserved PwD quota.
For which, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is liable to
be dismissed.
5. The O.P. Nos.3 and 4 submitted their counter jointly taking
the same stands like the O.P. Nos.1 and 2 denying the allegations
alleged by the Petitioner stating that, there is no illegality for non-
allowing the Petitioner to take admission and admitting O.P. No.5
in PwD quota.
Page 7 of 12

Therefore, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is liable to
be dismissed.
6. I have already heard from the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner and the learned S.C. for the State.
7. There is clear indication/reflection in Para No.7(g) of the
Information Brochure vide Annexure-C/3 that,
“the total sanctioned seats (excluding PwD
seats) in each category shall be distributed
as per the reservation policy.”
Likewise, it has also been indicated in the Annexure-A/3
supplied to the Petitioner through an application vide R.T.I Act
that,

“However, for PwD seats, the 5% PwD
reservation continues to remain applicable,
irrespective of social category and the said
seats are not to be de-reserved as long as
eligible PwD applicants are available.
A non-PwD candidate cannot claim
any PwD seat under any circumstances as
long as eligible PwD applicants have
applied and are available in the Waiting
List.”
Page 8 of 12

8. The above Information Brochure vide Annexure-C/3 as well
as Annexure-A/3 are clearly and unambiguously clarifying that,
the total sanctioned seats (excluding PwD seats) in each category
shall be distributed and the 5% reservation for PwDs shall be
applicable, irrespective of social category and the said seats shall
not be de-reserved as long as eligible PwD applicants are
available and non-PwD candidate like the Petitioner cannot claim
any seat from the seats reserved for PwD students at any
circumstance, even, at the spot selection.
9. When, the above conditions for the selection as per
Annexure-A/3 and C/3 are clearly and unambiguously going to
show that, 5 per cent seats shall compulsorily be filled up by the
PwD candidates and the said 5 per cent seats reserved for PwD
students cannot be filled up by any non-PwD candidates like the
Petitioner and when, only the PwD candidates are eligible to get
admission in respect of their 5% quota, even, during spot
selection process, then, the Petitioner being a non-PwD candidate
was/is not eligible to take admission against the reserved quota
seats for PwD candidate and out of 3 seats for PwD candidates,
the O.P No.5 being a PwD candidate has taken admission, even if,
Page 9 of 12

he had secured less percentage marks than the Petitioner, as the
Petitioner is a non-PwD candidate.
10. The Apex Court has directed for proper implementation of
the Act i.e. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in providing admission and
appointment to the PwD candidates compulsorily against their
reserved quota without infringing their right in any manner.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Jeeja Ghosh and Another Vrs. Union
of India and others reported in II (2016) C.L.T. 212 (SC) that,

Rights that are guaranteed to differently abled persons
under Act, 1995 are founded on sound principle of human
dignity, which is core value of human right and is treated as a
significant facet of right to life and liberty.
Such a right, now treated as human right of persons who
are disabled, has its roots in Article 21 of Constitution.
Human dignity is a constitutional value and a
constitutional goal. Respect for human rights is root for human
development and realization of full potential of each individual
which in turn leads to augmentation of human resources with
progress of nation. Empowerment of people through human
development is aim of human rights.
(ii) In a case between Rajeev Kumar Gupta and others
Vrs. Union of India and Others reported in 2017 (1) C.L.R.
370 (SC) that,
Exercise to identify posts reserved for persons with
disability under Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Page 10 of 12

Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995 is crucial. Identified post must be reserved for PWD
irrespective of the mode of recruitment.

(iii) In a case between Govt. of India through Secretary
Vrs. Ravi Prakash Gupta reported in 2010 (3) Apex Court
Judgments 305 (SC) that,
Reservation for the PwD is not dependent on identification
of posts, because, reservation is their statutory right.
(iv) In a case between Disabled Rights Group and Another
Vrs. Union of India and Another reported in 2018 (1) O.J.R.
305 (SC) that,
Proper implementation of the Act i.e. Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016 should be made making adequate
provisions and facilities of teaching for disabled persons
depending upon the nature of their disability to enable them to
undertake their studies effectively.

(v) In a case between Justice Sunanda Bhandare
Foundation Vrs. Union of India and Another reported in
2014 (2) O.J.R. 280 (SC) that,
As there was Non-implementation of Act i.e. Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 despite passing of 18 years, for which,
direction was issued to the Central Government as well as State
Government and Union Territories to implement the provisions of
the 1995 Act immediately and positively by the end of 2014.
11. As per the discussions and observations made above, when,
5 per cent seats i.e. three seats were kept reserved for PwD
candidates/students by the DPIASE, Berhampur and out of the
said three seats for PwD students, one seat has been filled up
giving admission to O.P. No.5 as PwD candidate and when, the
seats reserved for PwD students cannot be filled up by the non-
PwD students like the Petitioner, even, during spot selection, as
the said seats are only for PwD candidates/students, then at this
Page 11 of 12

juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio
of the aforesaid decisions, it cannot be held that, non-allowing the
Petitioner by the O.P Nos.1 to 4 to take admission against the
PwD reserved quota seat cannot be held as erroneous.
For which, the question of cancellation of the admission of
O.P. No.5 and to direct the O.P. Nos.1 to 4 to admit the Petitioner
does not arise.
Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the
Petitioner. The same is liable to be dismissed.
12. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed
on contest.
13. As such, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is disposed
of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
15.05.2026// Binayak Sahoo
Jr. Stenographer

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 19-May-2026 15:50:26
Page 12 of 12