Orissa High Court
WP(C)/6816/2013 of GAJENDRANATH PRUSTI Vs P.O.,STATE EDU.TRIBU on 29 June 2026
of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6816 of 2013 Gajendranath Prusti …. Petitioner None -versus- Presiding Officer, State Education Tribunal, Bhubanswar and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. D.N. Lenka, AGA (for O.P. Nos.2 to 4 Opposite Party no.5-None CORAM: JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.6816 of 2013
Gajendranath Prusti
….
Petitioner
None
-versus-
Presiding Officer, State
Education Tribunal,
Bhubanswar and others
….
Opp. Parties
Mr. D.N. Lenka, AGA
(for O.P. Nos.2 to 4
Opposite Party no.5-None
CORAM:
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
29.06.2026 (Hybrid Mode)
09.
1. The matter is listed for orders.
2. The office note refers to the memo dated 24.06.2026 filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner which states thus: “In the aforesaid mentioned case the petitioner challenge the order of the Education Tribunal regarding the post of Headmaster in-charge. Wrongly the Education Tribunal please to pass an order opp. party No.4 to be Headmaster, which violates the rules of the Education Act. In Aided High School the Senior Most trained Graduate teacher would be remain as Head- master in-charge. By virtue of this Hon’ble Court status que order was passed and the ptr. was remain as Headmaster-in-charge & in the meantime the ptr. became retired from service. Hence the case is in-factrous. (sic)
3. It is submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that he has not been provided copy of the memo. The learned AGA is permitted to obtain a copy of the memo available in the Court records to be provided by the Court Master.
4. As stated in the writ petition, the petitioner challenged the judgment dated 21.11.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, State Education Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in Appeal No.31/2011. The petitioner was aggrieved as he was in-charge Headmaster which was challenged by the appellant (present opposite party no.5) before the learned Education Tribunal. The learned Tribunal by its judgment allowed the prayer of the appellant- opposite party no.5 by setting aside the order issued by the authority appointing the present petitioner as Headmaster.
5. The writ petition was presented on 18.01.2013. It was taken up by the Division Bench as it was then having the determination on 29.07.2013. Copies were directed to be served on the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.5 also appeared and accepted notice on behalf of the opposite party no.5.
6. Though it is mentioned in the memo as quoted above there was a order of status quo passed by this Court, perusal of the order sheet does not indicate any such order.
7. However, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner during pendency of the writ petition he has continued as in-charge Headmaster and he has retired from service on attaining age of superannuation.
8. In such view of the matter, nothing survives for adjudication as during pendency of the writ petition, the order of the learned Education Tribunal was under challenge and the petitioner continued to work as in-charge Headmaster.
9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge
jyotsna Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 03-Jul-2026 14:22:29 Signature Not Verified