BISHESWAR DASH vs GOVERNING BODY OF KESINGA DEGREE MAHAVIDYALAYA, KESINGA, KALAHANDI

Court
Odisha High Court





Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 07-Sep-2026 16:43:47

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

WP(C) No.34411 of 2025
CNR No. ODHC010844702025


(Under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

….
Bisheswar Dash Petitioner
-versus-



…
Governing Body of Kesinga Degree
Mahavidyalaya, Kesinga,
represented through its Principal-
in-Charge-cum-Secretary and
Others



Opposite Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Petitioner in person

For Opp. Parties : Mr. T.K. Dash, A.G.A.


CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY


JUDGMENT
st
31 August, 2026
B.P. Routray, J.
1 . Heard the petitioner in person and Mr. T.K. Dash, learned AGA
for State – opposite parties.
th th
2. It is seen from the office note dated 17 December, 2025 / 28
January, 2026 that the notices have been served on opposite parties No.1
and 4 as per the postal tracking report. Accordingly, service of notice on
said opposite parties is treated sufficient. Said opposite parties No.1 and
WP(C) No.34411 of 2025 Page 1 of 5

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 07-Sep-2026 16:43:47
4 have not entered their appearance despite sufficiency of service of
notice.
3 . Mr. Dash, learned AGA in course of hearing submits that the
appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 10-A of the Odisha
Education Act is not maintainable before State Education Tribunal since
the petitioner was not receiving any GIA pursuant to his appointment to
st
the 1 post of Lecturer in Zoology in the College. Being asked, Mr. Dash
is unable to satisfy whether such point of maintainability was raised at
the initial stage before the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal
under Annexure-9 does not speak anything regarding such question of
maintainability and the tribunal has disposed of the case on merits.
4. Nonetheless, the post to which the petitioner was appointed, was
earlier receiving GIA during the incumbency of his predecessor in the
st
post, i.e. 1 post of Zoology. Therefore, for not receiving GIA by the
petitioner, despite the fact that the post was eligible to receive the GIA
and in fact received Block-grant earlier, such objection raised by Mr.
Dash, learned AGA with regard to maintainability of the appeal of the
petitioner under Section 10-A of the Odisha Education Act at this stage is
unsustainable. This court accordingly proceeds on merits of the case to
decide the dispute.

WP(C) No.34411 of 2025 Page 2 of 5

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 07-Sep-2026 16:43:47
st
5. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the 1 post of Zoology
after the previous incumbent namely Dr. Mamata Mishra left the post.
th
The petitioner was appointed on 26 October, 2016. He continued in
st
such post till his date of termination, i.e. on 1 March, 2024. After being
terminated from service, the petitioner approached the State Education
Tribunal in terms of Section 10-A of the Odisha Education Act. The
learned Tribunal, upon adjudication of the dispute came to the finding
th
that the order of rejection of approval of the petitioner dated 9
November, 2022 (Annexure-12) issued by the Director of Higher
Education Department can be treated to fulfill the requirement of
approval under Section 10-A of the Odisha Education Act. This order of
th
the Tribunal dated 26 September, 2025 is subject matter of challenge
before this court.
6. It is submitted by the petitioner that his service was terminated
after his continuation in the post for around 8 years without taking prior
approval of the authority concerned in terms of the requirement of
Section 10-A of the Odisha Education Act and thus, the Tribunal has
committed error treating the order of rejection of approval of the Director
th
dated 9 November, 2022 in the present context for compliance of the
requirement under Section 10-A.

WP(C) No.34411 of 2025 Page 3 of 5

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 07-Sep-2026 16:43:47
7. Mr. Dash, learned AGA submits that despite the petitioner was
appointed since 2016 in the College, but he was continuing in the
management post since neither any intimation nor any approval was sent
in that regard to the Director of Higher Education. Admittedly the
petitioner was not receiving GIA though his predecessor had received the
same. It is again submitted by Mr. Dash that an appointment to a post of
aided educational institution is to be made through the selection board
and in the present case by violating such provisions, particularly the
guidelines issued by the government in that regard to meet the
contingency in case of emergency, the appointment of the petitioner
cannot be treated as in accordance with law. Since he was continuing in
the management post, therefore the prior approval of the authority is not
required.
8. Upon hearing both the parties it is seen that the petitioner was
st
appointed to the 1 post of Zoology by the governing body of Kesinga
Mahavidyalaya, Kesinga without following due process of law to get the
candidate through the selection board in terms of the provisions
contained in the Odisha Education (Selection Board for the State) Rules,
1992. The petitioner continued to receive salary from the management
st
without receiving the GIA till 1 March, 2024 when his service was
terminated. For approval of his service and to receive GIA the petitioner

WP(C) No.34411 of 2025 Page 4 of 5

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 07-Sep-2026 16:43:47
earlier filed WP(C) No.16826 of 2022 and pursuant to the direction
issued by this court, the Director of Higher Education considered the
case of the petitioner and rejected his prayer for approval and release of
th
GIA, as per the order dated 9 November, 2022 at Annexure-12. But
interestingly, the tribunal while determining the issue of termination
st
effected on 1 March, 2024 has opined that the order of the Director
th
dated 9 November, 2022 is treated as compliance of requirement of
approval in terms of Section 10-A of the Odisha Education Act. Such
approach of the tribunal is found not in accordance with law and thus, it
is felt appropriate to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh
consideration of the case of the petitioner.
th
9. Accordingly, while setting aside the order dated 26 September,
2025 of the Tribunal, learned State Education Tribunal is directed to re-
adjudicate appeal No.4 of 2024 afresh in accordance with law, after
granting due opportunity of hearing to all the parties, preferably within
four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. With aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition is
disposed of.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge

M.K. Panda,P.A.

WP(C) No.34411 of 2025 Page 5 of 5