Similarly situated persons are entitled to equal treatment and legal parity under Article 14.

The Petitioners are trained graduates who successfully cleared the Odisha Teacher Eligibility Test (OTET), fulfilling the academic requirements for the post of Sikhya Sahayak under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

Following a 2016 Government advertisement for huge vacancies, the Petitioners applied but their applications were rejected solely on the grounds of being "over age"

The Petitioners approached the High Court seeking parity with candidates in Babita Satpathy and others v. State of Odisha (W.A. No. 701 of 2019) and other subsequent judgments, where the Court had directed the State to consider over-aged OTET-qualified graduates for appointment against backlog vacancies

Whether the Petitioners, being similarly situated to the successful litigants in W.A. No. 701 of 2019 and related matters, are entitled to equal treatment and consideration for engagement as Sikhya Sahayaks despite being over-age

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law and mandates that "equals should not be treated unlike"

Ardhendu Sekhar Rath v. State of Odisha (2019), which establishes that law must deal alike with all in one class

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam v. Bachan Singh (2009) to affirm that all persons similarly placed must be treated alike in both privileges conferred and liabilities imposed without discrimination

The Court noted that the Petitioners' applications were rejected for the exact same reason—over-age status—as those in the cited precedents, including Babita Satpathy and Dhaneswar Das v. State of Odisha

Justice Behera reasoned that since the Petitioners are "similarly placed" with the individuals who received relief in earlier writ petitions, they are entitled to the same legal treatment

The Court held that it is a settled proposition of law that "like cases are to be decided alike" and the judiciary cannot discriminate between similarly situated persons

Consequently, the Court found no alternative but to dispose of the matter in alignment with the previous judicial directions granted in the cited batch of cases

The Court directed Opposite Party No. 1 to consider and dispose of these representations for engagement as Sikhya Sahayaks or equivalent posts, ensuring the Petitioners receive treatment at par with the applicants in W.A. No. 701 of 2019 and other referenced matters