IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.22349 of 2026 Managing Committee of B. N. ..... Petitioner High School Represented by Adv. - Dillip Kumar Mohapatra -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - Smt. S.Nayak, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 21.07.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to-I. Admit the writ application; II. Call for records III. Issue a writ of Mandamus in directing O.P. to notify the applicant school under 1994 GIA order and to approve the appointment of the staff of Page 1 of 4. petitioner's school under the said 1994 GIA order in place of 2004 GIA order with all consequential service benefits in terms of the Judgment law pronounced by the Hon'ble Court and confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 25.03.2026 in SLP(C) NO. 6943 of 2026. And this Hon’ble Court may pass any other order/orders as would be deemed just and proper for the ends of the justice;”

4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that being aggrieved by inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 the Director Secondary Education Odisha, Bhubaneswar in disposing of the representation of the Petitioner dated 13.04.2026 at Annexure-5 to the writ application, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that many similar matters have been disposed of in terms of order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in FAO No.509 of 2014 disposed of on 19.03.2025 in the State of Odisha and another vs. Ratnakar Mohapatra and another in (F.A.O. No.509 of 2014). In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite Parties are directed to consider and dispose of the grievance of the Petitioner by taking into consideration the ratio laid down in Ratnakar Mohapatra’ case (supra). 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the maintainability of the present writ application on the ground that since the dispute involved in the present writ application pertains to release of grant-in-aid in favour of the present Petitioner, the Page 2 of 4.

Petitioner should have approached the learned State Education Tribunal instead of approaching this Court by filing the present writ application. He further contended that while considering the case of the Petitioner for release of the grant-in-aid, the Opposite Parities are required to test the eligibility and entitlement of the Petitioners as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ratnakar Mohapatra’s Case (supra). On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ application is not maintainable and that the same being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts and further taking note of the fact that the Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 in disposing his representation at Annexure-5, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law by keeping in view the ratio laid down in Ratnakar Mohapatra’s case (supra) and further verify the entitlement and eligibility of the present Petitioner, to such grant-in-aid as per the judgment of this Court which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Let a final decision be taken in the matter within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.2 along with a copy of today’s order. The grievance of the Petitioner shall be redressed by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Such final order be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such decision. It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter Page 3 of 4.

particular with regard to eligibility and entailment of the Petitioner which shall be considered by the Opposite Party No.2 while considering the representation of the Petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Rubi Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4. Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Jul-2026 19:13:27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.22349 of 2026 Managing Committee of B. N. ..... Petitioner High School Represented by Adv. - Dillip Kumar Mohapatra -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. - Smt. S.Nayak, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 21.07.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to-I. Admit the writ application; II. Call for records III. Issue a writ of Mandamus in directing O.P. to notify the applicant school under 1994 GIA order and to approve the appointment of the staff of Page 1 of 4. petitioner's school under the said 1994 GIA order in place of 2004 GIA order with all consequential service benefits in terms of the Judgment law pronounced by the Hon'ble Court and confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 25.03.2026 in SLP(C) NO. 6943 of 2026. And this Hon’ble Court may pass any other order/orders as would be deemed just and proper for the ends of the justice;”

4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that being aggrieved by inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 the Director Secondary Education Odisha, Bhubaneswar in disposing of the representation of the Petitioner dated 13.04.2026 at Annexure-5 to the writ application, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that many similar matters have been disposed of in terms of order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in FAO No.509 of 2014 disposed of on 19.03.2025 in the State of Odisha and another vs. Ratnakar Mohapatra and another in (F.A.O. No.509 of 2014). In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite Parties are directed to consider and dispose of the grievance of the Petitioner by taking into consideration the ratio laid down in Ratnakar Mohapatra’ case (supra). 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the maintainability of the present writ application on the ground that since the dispute involved in the present writ application pertains to release of grant-in-aid in favour of the present Petitioner, the Page 2 of 4.

Petitioner should have approached the learned State Education Tribunal instead of approaching this Court by filing the present writ application. He further contended that while considering the case of the Petitioner for release of the grant-in-aid, the Opposite Parities are required to test the eligibility and entitlement of the Petitioners as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ratnakar Mohapatra’s Case (supra). On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ application is not maintainable and that the same being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts and further taking note of the fact that the Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 in disposing his representation at Annexure-5, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law by keeping in view the ratio laid down in Ratnakar Mohapatra’s case (supra) and further verify the entitlement and eligibility of the present Petitioner, to such grant-in-aid as per the judgment of this Court which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Let a final decision be taken in the matter within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.2 along with a copy of today’s order. The grievance of the Petitioner shall be redressed by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Such final order be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such decision. It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter Page 3 of 4.

particular with regard to eligibility and entailment of the Petitioner which shall be considered by the Opposite Party No.2 while considering the representation of the Petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Rubi Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4. Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Jul-2026 19:13:27