DR. SUJATA DASH vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.24574 of 2024
CNR No. ODHC010711652024
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India
Dr. Sujata Dash …. Petitioner
versus
1. State of Odisha, through
Commissioner-cum-Secretary,
Higher Education Department
2. Maharaja Sriram Chandra
Bhanja Deo University
through its Registrar …. Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case :
For Petitioner : Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Tej Kumar,
Additional Standing Counsel
(for O.P. No.1)
: M/s. Sanjeev Udgata, S. Udgata,
A. Mishra, S. Udgata,
(for O.P. No.2)
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
J U D G M E N T
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing:12.10.2026 : Date of Judgment:30.10.2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.24574 of 2024 Page 1 of 9
MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 and
learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.
2. The Writ Petition has been filed with the following
prayer:
“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon'ble
Court, may graciously be pleased to admit this
petition; and pass a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writs quashing the notification no. 877
dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure 1) and office order
dated 22.03.2023 (Annexure 8) as the same are
illegal and arbitrary and against the judgment of this
Hon'ble Court in WA nos. 186 and 187 of 2018 Priya
Ranjan Dash and Ors. V. State of Odisha and Ors.
And pass a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or any direction to the Opposite
Party no.2 to re-designate the Petitioner as Associate
Professor from the date of her appointment and grant
arrear and consequential financial benefits.
And, further be pleased to pass any other
Order/Orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. The challenge to the order at Annexure-1 is to the extent
that the effective date of re-designation of petitioner as
Associate Professor notified by the notification dated
14.02.2023 issued by the University (Opp. Party No.2) should
be 14.08.2014 instead of 21.08.2019.
4. It is contended in the Writ Petition that the authorities
while issuing Annexure-1 did not follow the judgment dated
17.11.2022 of this Court in W.A. Nos.186 & 187 of 2018;
W.P.(C) No.24574 of 2024 Page 2 of 9
Priaya Ranjan Dash and others vrs. State of Orissa and
others rendered by the Division Bench.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Udgata, learned counsel appearing
for the Opposite Party No.2-University that the Petitioner has
never approached the authority raising a grievance against the
notification dated 14.02.2023 which is in fact in favour of the
Petitioner as far as redesignation of the Petitioner as Associate
Professor when she was working as Reader. It is submitted
regarding the effective date of redesignation to be 14.08.2014,
earlier to 21.08.2019, the Petitioner has never approached the
authority.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that though the Petitioner has not approached the authority,
but she challenges the order dated 14.02.2023. It is submitted
that prior to passing of the order dated 14.02.2023 the
Division Bench of this Court had passed order dated
17.11.2022 in W.A. No.187 of 2018. The order was challenged
by State by filing SLP and SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on 17.05.2024. The Application seeking review
of the order dated 17.05.2024 was dismissed on 18.02.2026.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Udgata for the
University that judgments in W.A. are with respect to Utkal
University, the issue as to whether the authority/Opposite
Party No.2 should have followed and applied the judgments
delivered by this Court with regard to Utkal University is
academic, inasmuch as, the Petitioner has never approached
W.P.(C) No.24574 of 2024 Page 3 of 9
the authority after order dated 17.05.2024 dismissing SLP or
after order dated 18.02.2026 dismissing Review.
8. In response it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the notification dated 14.02.2023 regarding the
date of redesignation is in violation of the order of the High
Court dated 17.11.2022 in W.A. Nos.186 & 187 of 2018.
The learned counsel was requested to point out which
order of the authority violates which part of the order passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17.11.2022 in
writ appeal;
in response learned counsel refers to Paragraphs 5,7,14
& 15 of the judgment, which are reproduced herein:
“5. Immediately relevant for the present case is Rule 7
(1)(iii), which applies to the persons who were already in
the posts of Readers and had completed five years of
service after 1st January, 2006. In other words, the
above Rule 7 (1)(iii) was not meant to apply to direct
recruited Readers, who were going to be recruited after
2010. Even Rule 2 of the 2010 Rules, states that “these
rules shall apply to the University Teachers (UGC Scale of
Pay) in whole time employment of the Utkal University,
Berhampur University, Sambalpur University, Shree
Jagannath Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, North Orissa
University, Fakir Mohan University and Ravenshaw
University.”
7. However, when it came to making a resolution on the
basis of the above Rules, the Department of Higher
Education devised a norm as regards Readers which was
inconsistent with the above Rule 7 (1)(iii). In terms of the
Resolution dated 4th April 2016, it was stipulated that
while Readers with less than five years of service would
be re-designated as Assistant Professor Stage-III with the
pay scale of Rs.15,600-39,100 + AGP Rs.8,000/-,
Readers with five years of service were to be re-
W.P.(C) No.24574 of 2024 Page 4 of 9
designated as Associate Professor and given the pay
scale of Rs.37,400-67,000/- + AGP Rs.9,000/-.
14. Having heard the submissions of Mr. Pitambar
Acharya, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Sudarshan
Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants both
in W.A. Nos.186 and 187 of 2018; Mr. Dayananda
Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Utkal University and
Mr. Manoj Kumar Khuntia, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State, the Court is of the
view that the resolution dated 4th April 2016 of the State
Government was under a misconstruction of the 2010
Rules, which have been extracted hereinbefore. Clearly,
the stipulation that Readers should have completed five
years of service was not meant to apply to Readers
directly recruited subsequent to the said Regulations but
to existing Readers. It was this mistake that crept into the
resolution dated 4th April 2016, which is resulted in the
State adopting a stand contrary to the 2010 Regulations.
As pointed out by the learned counsel for the Appellants
in relation to other Universities viz., Shree Jagannath
Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya and the Fakir Mohan
University, the advertisement issued after the UGC
Regulations had clearly mentioned that it is the UGC
Regulations that would apply as far as the scales of pay
for the various posts of teachers is concerned.
15. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court sets
aside the impugned judgment dated 22nd March 2018,
passed by the learned Single Judge and while allowing
the prayers of these two Appellants made in their
respective writ petitions i.e., W.P.(C) Nos.1260 and 1261
of 2018, directs the Utkal University to fix their respective
scales in Pay Band-4 (Rs.37,400-67,000/- + AGP
Rs.9,000/-) in terms of Appendix-I, Appendix-III, Table-II
(c) of the UGC Regulations, 2010 with retrospective effect
from their respective dates of appointment with all
arrears and consequential benefits.”
9. In response to the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Udgata, learned counsel
appearing for the OP No.2 University relies on the decision of
W.P.(C) No.24574 of 2024 Page 5 of 9
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saraswati Industrial
1
Syndicate Ltd. and others vrs. Union of India (UOI) to
submit that for issuance of a writ of certiorari there has to be
an impugned quasi judicial proceeding before this Court and
for issuance of a writ of mandamus there has to be a demand
by the Petitioner as well as a decision by the authority. Relied
upon Paragraphs-28 & 29 are reproduced herein:
“28. As the appeals fail on merits we need not discuss
the technical difficulty which an application for a writ of
certiorari would encounter when no quasi-judicial
proceedings was before the High Court.
The powers of the high Court under Article 226 are not
strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for
prerogative writs are subject in English practice.
Nevertheless the well recognised rule that no writ or
order in the nature of a Mandamus would issue when
there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies
in this country as well. Evert in cases of alleged
breaches of mandatory duties the salutary general rule
which is subject to certain exceptions applied by us as it
is in England when writ of Mandamus is asked for could
be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury's Taws of
England (3rd edition vol. 13 p. 106)5:
As a general rule the order will not be granted
unless the party complained of has known what
it was he was required to do so that he had the
means of considering whether or not he should
comply and it must be shown by evidence that
there was a distinct demand of that which the
party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce
and that that demand was met by a refusal.
29. In the cases before us there was no such, demand
refusal. Thus no ground whatsoever is shown here for
1
AIR 1975 SC 460: (1974) 2 SCC 6309
W.P.(C) No.24574 of 2024 Page 6 of 9
the issue of any writ order or direction under Article 226
of the Constitution.”
10.
Mr. Tej Kumar, learned Additional Standing Counsel in
response also reiterates the submissions of Mr. Udgata that
the Petitioner has never approached the authority that have
passed the order dated 14.02.2023, for re-determination of
the effective date of redesignation as Associate Professor to
be 14.08.202014, i.e., the date of appointment of the
Petitioner instead of 21.08.2019.
11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
University that the University relies on the State
Government Circulars and in particular in the case at hand
the authorities had relied on the Letter No. HE-UE-POLICY-
0010-2021-32865/HE dated 13.08.2021, therefore the State
Government have a say.
12. In considered view of this Court the State Government
is not the authority directly to deal with the redesignation of
Associate Professor. It is nobody’s case that the University is
not the authority rather the University being the authority
has redesignated the Petitioner as Associate Professor after
she was appointed as Reader on 14.08.2014. The State
Government Circular dated 13.08.2021 (copy of which
annexed as part of Annexure-A/1 Series, Page-13 of the
counter affidavit filed by OP No.2) refers to the Department
of Higher Education Resolution No.7889 dated 04.04.2016
published in Odisha Gazette on 05.04.2016. The Higher
Education Department Resolution dated 04.04.2016 was
W.P.(C) No.24574 of 2024 Page 7 of 9
subject matter of adjudication/interpretation by this Court
before the Division Bench in the W.A. Nos.186 & 187 of
2018 as would be apparent from the said order.
Paragraph-7 of the said order is reproduced herein:
“7. However, when it came to making a resolution on
the basis of the above Rules, the Department of Higher
Education devised a norm as regards Readers which
was inconsistent with the above Rule 7 (1)(iii). In terms
of the Resolution dated 4th April 2016, it was
stipulated that while Readers with less than five years
of service would be re-designated as Assistant
Professor Stage-III with the pay scale of Rs.15,600-
39,100 + AGP Rs.8,000/-, Readers with five years of
service were to be re-designated as Associate Professor
and given the pay scale of Rs.37,400-67,000/- + AGP
Rs.9,000/-.”
13. The order of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Appeal has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
as the Appellant-State before this Court carried the matter
to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) No.52757 of
2023 ( The State of Odisha & Others vrs. Siba Shankar
Mohanty & Others ) which was dismissed by order dated
17.05.2024. Thereafter, a Review Petition was filed against
the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court which has been
dismissed by order dated 18.02.2026.
14. The Petitioner shall approach the Registrar, Maharaja
Sriram Bhanja Deo University with certified copy of this
order and the order dated 17.11.2022 of this Court passed
in W.A. Nos.186 & 187 of 2018 ( Priya Ranjan Dash and
others vrs. State of Odisha and others ), copy of the order
dated 17.05.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court
W.P.(C) No.24574 of 2024 Page 8 of 9
dismissing the SLP and the order dated 18.02.2026 passed
by the Apex Court in dismissing the Review arising out of
the SLP(C) No.11922 of 2024.
15. When the Petitioner approaches the authority again for
refixation of the effective date of redesignation, the authority
shall do well to consider the implications of the order passed
by the Division Bench of this Court and dismissal of the SLP
as well as the Review Petition.
16. This Court in no uncertain terms, observes that the
redesignation of the Petitioner as an Associate Professor has
attained finality; the effective date of redesignation is the
issue which shall be considered by the appropriate
authority.
th
17. The Petitioner shall approach by 16 November, 2026
the Registrar for placing her representation before the
authority. The appropriate authority of the University shall
consider the representation of the Petitioner in accordance
with law and also in terms of the observations made in this
judgment within a period of three months from the date
receipt of the representation along with all the documents.
18. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above
observations and directions.
No costs.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
The 30 October, 2026/Amit/Rajesh
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 30-Oct-2026 20:16:05
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.24574 of 2024 Page 9 of 9