STATE OF ODISHA vs KUMUDINI DASH
- Court
- Odisha High Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 03-Sep-2026 19:25:24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA NO.704 OF 2024
(An application under Clause 10 of Letter Patents Appeal read with
Article 4 of Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with Rule-2 of
Chapter-VIII, O.H.C. Rules, 1948)
*
State of Odisha and others …… Appellants
-Versus-
1. Kumudini Dash, Wife of Sri Bimalananda Pati,
At/Po- Govindpur, Via-Asurali, Dist-Bhadrak
…… Respondent
(Petitioner in the Writ Petition)
2. Govindpur Nodal U.P. School, represented
through Headmaster (Principal),
At/Po-Govindpur, Via-Asurali, Dist-Bhadrak,
3. Basanti Parida, At:Prabodhpur,
Po-Madari, Basudevpur, Dist-Bhadrak,
4. Prasantilata Das, Wife of Sri Dayanidhi Mohanta,
At/Po-Geltia, Via-Madhabanagar, Dist-Bhadrak
……. Proforma Respondents.
(Opp. Party No.4, 5 & 6 in the Writ Petition.)
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioners : Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal,
Additional Standing Counsel
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Surya Prasad Misra, Senior Advocate
being assisted by R.K.Agarwal, Advocate
(For Respondent No.1)
Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Advocate
(for Proforma Respondent No.3)
Mr. Adyasidhi Mishra, Advocate
(for Proforma Respondent No.4)
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 01.09.2026
----------------------------------------------
W.A. No.704 of 2024
Page 1 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 03-Sep-2026 19:25:24
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The instant Intra-Court Appeal has been filed assailing the
nd
judgment dated 22 December, 2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.16354
of 2018.
3. The factual backdrop of the case relevant for adjudication of
this Intra-Court appeal, is that W.P.(C) No.16354 of 2018 was filed
by Respondent No.1-Kumudini Dash (Petitioner therein)
th
challenging her order of disengagement dated 9 October, 2018
passed by the District Project Coordinator, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
(SSA), Bhadrak. Respondent No.1 also sought for certain other
consequential reliefs in the Writ Petition. By then, she was
continuing as Sikshya Sahayak in Gobindpur Nodal UP School,
Dhamnagar Block in the district of Bhadrak. While continuing as
nd
such, Respondent No.1 received letter No.13272 dated 22
September, 2008 issued from District Office, SSA, Bhadrak to
st
remain present on 1 October, 2008 along with her original
certificates and mark sheets for verification. On verification, it was
found that certificates produced by Respondent No.1 were genuine.
However, to her utter surprise, she was intimated that the
calculation of marks was erroneous as the marks awarded to
Respondent No.1 in extra-optional paper was taken into
Page 2 of 7
W.A. No.704 of 2024
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 03-Sep-2026 19:25:24
consideration while issuing appointment letter. On receipt of such
nd
letter dated 22 September, 2008, Respondent No.1 was
constrained to approach this Court in W.P.(C) No.14761 of 2008.
During pendency of the said Writ Petition, she was disengaged
th
from her services vide letter dated 9 October, 2008. Assailing the
same, Respondent No.1 filed W.P.(C) No.16354 of 2018 and the
order passed therein is under challenge in the present Intra-Court
Appeal by the State.
nd
4. Learned Single Judge, in its order dated 22 December,
2023, while disposing of the Writ Petition, held that Respondent
No.1 was not at fault for the wrong calculation of marks. As such,
she should not be prevented from discharging her duties. It is,
therefore, directed to reinstate Respondent No.1 immediately with
arrear salary.
5. Mr. Biswal, learned ASC appearing for the Appellants-State
submits that there were two vacancies for CT-UR (Female)-PH
(ENT) category in the advertisement and two candidates were
already engaged against the said post after disengagement of
Respondent No.1. Thus, there is no post to accommodate
Respondent No.1 in the post of Sikshya Sahayak in respect of the
vacancy of that year. It is further submitted that during course of
recruitment, there was, of course, a mistake committed by the
District Project Coordinator, SSA, Bhadrak in selecting
Respondent No.1 by calculating the percentage of marks obtained
by her in extra-optional paper and giving her engagement as
Page 3 of 7
W.A. No.704 of 2024
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 03-Sep-2026 19:25:24
Sikshya Sahayak. But when such mistake (calculation of marks)
came to notice, Respondent No.1 was disengaged. Thus, there was
no illegality in disengaging her from service.
th
6. The Writ Appeal was earlier taken up on 25 August, 2026,
when Mr. Misra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
Respondent No.1 relied upon ratio in the case of Tarunakanti
Sethi vrs. State of Orissa and others; 110 (2010) CLT 545 ,
wherein, it is held as under:-
“6. Learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass
Education Department filed a resolution No 29557/S & M.E.
dated 04.11.2000, wherein it has been mentioned that the marks
th
secured 4 optional or extra-optional subject in HSC
Examination is to be deducted from the total marks for arriving
at the effective percentage of marks [Clause-10(a)]. This clause
is not applicable to this case as in the present case the
qualifying mark is the marks obtained in +2 Examination. Such
clause should not be invoked to apply to cases where +2
Examination is to be considered as the qualifying examination.
Moreover, it is seen that in this case the extra optional is in the
discipline of education. In view of the fact that the Petitioner is
to be engaged as SS in the absence of trained candidates and
the Petitioner has received training in education as an extra
optional, it should be rather counted in her favour. In cases
where the candidates opt for extra optional, then she puts in
more labour & also acquires knowledge in an additional
subject. In recognition of such additional labour & knowledge,
bonus marks equal to marks secured in such paper, minus the
minimum pass mark is added to the total mark. There is no
logical & cogent reason why such excess of marks should not
be accredited to the candidates, especially when such marks are
taken into consideration while determining the division of the
student." (emphasis supplied)
Thus, it was submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate
that there is no logic or basis behind deducting the marks secured
Page 4 of 7
W.A. No.704 of 2024
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 03-Sep-2026 19:25:24
by Respondent No.1 in extra-optional while calculating percentage
of marks.
6.1 Mr. Biswal, learned ASC, on that date, prayed for an
adjournment to examine the said case law and address the Court.
7. Today, Mr. Biswal, learned ASC, after examining the case
law in Tarunakanti Sethi (supra) submits that the ratio decided
therein is squarely applicable to the case of Respondent No.1. He,
however, insisted that the post in which the Respondent No.1 was
continuing, has already been filled up by Respondent Nos.3 and 4
(Opposite Party Nos.5 and 6 in the Writ Petition).
8. On examination of record, it appears that Respondent No.4,
namely, Prasantilata Das has been directed to be
appointed/engaged against supernumerary post vide judgment
th
dated 18 March, 2011 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court
in WA No.110 of 2009. (Copy of the order has been enclosed as
Annexure-15 to the Writ Petition). For better appreciation, the
relevant paragraph of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-
“5. On consideration of the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of
documents
the pleadings as well as the relied upon,
we are of the considered view that since the
appellant has suffered due to no fault of her we
direct the opp. Party authorities to create super
numeral post for the appellant and keep her
engaged till a regular vacancy occurs.”
Page 5 of 7
W.A. No.704 of 2024
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 03-Sep-2026 19:25:24
9. In the said Writ Appeal, Respondent No.4 herein was the
Appellant. It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior
Advocate that Respondent No.1 was engaged as Sikshya Sahayak
in Govindpur Nodal UP School, which has been subsequently
th
merged with Korua-Govindpur High School with effect from 20
December, 2017. Although Respondent No.1 is continuing in her
post as Sikshya Sahayak and performing duties, but she is not
being paid her salary. No response to the said statement made by
the Respondent No.1 in her Rejoinder Affidavit (filed in the Writ
Petition), has either been given by the State Government in the
Writ Petition or in the present Writ Appeal.
10. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate submits that
Respondent No.1 has no quarrel with Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
They were made parties only for reference. Their engagement does
not affect either reengagement of Respondent No.1 or her
continuance.
11. Mr. Das, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that
since the Respondent No.1 does not claim any relief against her or
Respondent No.4, he has nothing to submit in the present Writ
Appeal.
12. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 also
reiterates the submission made by Mr. Das, learned counsel for
Respondent No.3.
Page 6 of 7
W.A. No.704 of 2024
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 03-Sep-2026 19:25:24
13. This Court also finds the learned Single Judge has not made
any observation in respect of either Respondent No.3 or 4 in the
impugned judgment.
14. In view of the discussion made above, we find no substance
in the submission of Mr. Biswal, learned ASC. Engagement and
continuance of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have nothing to do with
the reengagement and continuance of Respondent No.1 in her post
as Sikshya Sahayak. Mr. Biswal, learned ASC also could not point
out any patent illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment.
15. In that view of the matter and more particularly when
Mr. Biswal, learned ASC submits that ratio in the case of
Tarunakanti Sethi (supra) squarely applies to the case of
Respondent No.1, we find no merit in the Writ Appeal.
16. Accordingly, the instant Writ Appeal is dismissed. It is
expected that the impugned judgment under Annexure-1 be given
effect to as early as possible, preferably within a period of eight
weeks hence.
Urgent certified copy of the judgment be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
st
The 1 Day of September, 2026/s.s.satapathy
Page 7 of 7
W.A. No.704 of 2024