The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P. A. No. 516 of 2022 Mithilesh Kumar, S/o –Sri R.B Chaudhary, R/O- legal Cell, JUVNL, Near Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District –Ranchi, Jharkhand Versus --- --- Petitioner/Appellant 1.Jharkhand State Electricity Board now Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director having its office at Engineering Bhawan, HEC Township, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand 2.Secretary Jharkhand State Electricity Board now Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited having its office at Engineering Bhawan, HEC Township, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand 3.Director Personnel, Jharkhand State Electricity Board now Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited having its office at Engineering Bhawan, HEC Township, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand --- --- Respondents With L.P. A. No. 189 of 2019 Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited) through its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Engineering Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi (Jharkhand) through its Law Officer Arun Kumar Srivastava, Aged About-52 years, son of late Sri R.K. Lal, resident Of –Gas Godown Road, P.O. & P.S.- Namkum, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand --- --- Respondent No. 1/Appellant Versus 1.Mithilesh Kumar, S/o –Sri R.B Chaudhary, R/O- legal Cell, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Near Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Town And District Ranchi --- --- Petitioner/Respondent 1.The Secretary Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Engineering Bhawan, HEC Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi 2.The Director Personnel, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Engineering Bhawan, HEC, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi --- --- Performa Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR ….... In L.P.A. No. 516 of 2022 For the Petitioner/ Appellant For the Respondents : Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Pathak, Advocate : Mr. Shashi Kant Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.S.C., JUVNL In L.P.A. No. 189 of 2019 For the Respondent No.1/Appellant For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.S.C., JUVNL : Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Pathak, Advocate : Mr. Shashi Kant Mishra, Advocate 2 Order No.04/ Dated 26th July, 2023 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Both the appeals, L.P.A. No. 189 of 2019 and L.P.A. No. 516 of 2022 since arise out of same impugned order having been preferred by the Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited (JUVNL) so far as L.P.A. No. 189 of 2019 is concerned and by the writ petitioner so far as L.P.A. No.
Legal Reasoning
516 of 2022 is concerned, with the consent of learned counsels for both parties, are heard together. 2. The instant L.P.A.s preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, are directed against the order/judgment dated 20.08.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No. 720 of 2012 by the learned Single Judge of this Court by
Decision
which the claim of the writ petitioner for considerations of promotion to the post of Law Officer has been directed to be considered by antedating the date of promotion from 11.10.2008 to 28.05.2007. 3. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- 3(i) The petitioner had joined service of the Board (the then Bihar State Electricity Board) on the post of Legal Supervisor Grade-I under Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category with effect from 24.04.2000. On 15.11.2000 the erstwhile State of Bihar was reorganized and was bifurcated and a new State was created namely State of Jharkhand. After bifurcation of the State, the cadre division took place in which the petitioner was taken to be belonging from Jharkhand Cadre. With effect from 01.04.2001 a new Board was constituted and was recognized as Jharkhand State Electricity Board. 3(ii) The Bihar State Electricity Board, as it then was vide Resolution No. 1087 dated 23.10.1999 had fixed the minimum qualified period of service for promotion from one post to another in respect of legal wing of the Board as – 1. Legal Supervisor-II to Legal Supervisor-I- 8 years 2. Legal Supervisor-I to Law Officer- 8 years However for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe community one year relaxation was provided, meaning thereby that in effect for promotion from one post to another, so far it 3 related candidate belonging from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category seven years of minimum service was fixed for the purpose of qualifying for promotion. 3(iii) On 07.12.2004, under the instructions a list was prepared by the Joint Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board for filling up the vacancies and to understand the notified post of the Board officers. In fact a list was even prepared of the list of Legal Supervisors posted with the Board as on 01.04.2001. In terms of resolution dated 23.10.1999, since the petitioner had completed the Kalawdhi prescribed for promotion from the post of Legal Supervisor-I to Law Officer, the petitioner made a representation to the competent authority on 24.04.2007, which duly forwarded to Addl. Secretary for consideration. After the Board was created, the then existing resolution of the then Bihar State Electricity Board was duly adopted. 3(iv) However, as the Jharkhand State Electricity Board grew the Board vide its Resolution No. 436 thought it appropriate to carry out necessary amendments in the minimum qualifying period of service so fixed for promotion from one post to another and inconsonance thereof vide Resolution No. 1154 dated 28.05.2007 it was declared that the promotion from one post to another, so far it relates to Legal Wing Employee 6 years shall be the minimum qualification fixed. However, for the candidate belonging to SC/ST community, yet again one year relaxation was given. Hence in effect for the candidate belonging to SC/ST community, 5 years minimum qualification was fixed for promotion in the Legal Wing from one post to another. 3(v) After the resolution was passed a DPC meeting was conducted and in terms of which a broad sheet was prepared on 27.04.2007 wherein a comparative chart was prepared in which the petitioner’s date of completion of Kalawdhi was wrongly mentioned as 24.04.2006 which ought to have been 24.04.2005. But the promotion of other similarly situated officers were considered over the petitioner. The petitioner in fact made a representation to the Secretary seeking his intervention in the matter and to grant promotion. 3(vi) Since, no action was forthcoming, being aggrieved the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 2861 of 2008 inter alia praying therein for consideration of promotion from the date of its 4 eligibility in the year 2005 itself since the vacancy existed, but because of arbitrary and discriminatory action the rightful claim of the petitioner has not been granted. During the pendency of the writ application, the petitioner was promoted vide another resolution dated 11.10.2008 and as such the petitioner prayed for amendment of its writ application which was registered as I.A. No. 621 of 2009. During the pendency of the writ application and before filing of the I.A. Application, the petitioner had duly made a representation to the competent authority seeking revision of his promotion with effect from 24.04.2005 and not from 11.10.2008, which was duly recommended to competent authority, but since no decision was forthcoming, the petitioner had filed amendment application. 3(vii) On 12.01.2009, the Joint Secretary convened a meeting for consideration of promotion from the post of Law Officer to the post of Deputy Advisor, wherein the petitioners name was also under consideration, but yet again wrong figures were presented before the meeting wherein the date of appointment was mentioned as 15.10.2008, which ought to have been 11.10.2008 and as such the petitioner was once again victimized. In fact the name of the petitioner was also recommended for the promotion. However, the same was turned down by the then Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board misinterpreting the contents of the resolution, which the petitioner could learned only by seeking documents under RTI Act, 2005. 3(viii) The writ petition of the petitioner came up for hearing before this Hon’ble Court on 28.07.2011 and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation and in pursuance where of the Respondent no.2 passed reasoned order. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner filed its detailed representation before the authorities of the Board. The respondent no.2 in a stereo type manner went ahead to reject the petitioner’s claim without taking into consideration that on the date when the resolution has been published the petitioner had already become eligible for promotion. 3(ix) Being aggrieved with the order of rejection, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.720 of 2012. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 20.08.2018 directed the respondent no.2 to 5 consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Legal Supervisor Grade I to the post of Law Officer in accordance with the Resolution dated 28.05.2007 and the case of the petitioner for antedating his promotion from 11.10.2008 to 28.05.2007. Against the said order of learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner and the Electricity Board in respective appeals. 4. It is evident from the pleadings as referred herein above that writ petitioner was working as Legal Supervisor Grade-I under the Scheduled Caste category in the year 2000. The erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board had come out with a resolution on 23.10.1999 framing therein the time limit for promotion from one post to another for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other Backward Classes. The period of 8 years for grant of promotion was relaxed by 1 year so far as employees belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories are concerned. 5. After the bifurcation of the State, the Board has also been bifurcated and thereafter the Jharkhand State Electricity Board now Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited (JUVNL) has come out with another resolution dated 28.05.2007 in supersession to the resolution dated 23.10.1999. By the resolution dated 28.05.2007 minimum qualifying period of promotion from one post to another in the legal wing has been reduced from 8 years to 6 years and in the case of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe candidates, 1 year relaxation was given and in effect 5 years minimum qualification has been finalized. 6. The claim of the writ petitioner that as per the circular dated 23.10.1999, since he belonged to the Scheduled caste category, becomes eligible for consideration of promotion to the post of Law Officer, which is the next hierarchy in the cadre of Legal Supervisor-I from 24.4.2007, i.e., on completion of 7 years of tenure as provided under the resolution 23.10.1999. The promotion was granted in favour of the writ petitioner when the new resolution dated 28.05.2007 came into being but w.e.f. 11.10.2008. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved had approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2861 of 2008 praying therein for consideration of promotion from the date of its eligibility in the year 2005. The writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to 6 file representation before the competent authority and the representation has been dealt with, the claim of the petitioner had been denied by passing Annexure-14 dated 21.10.2011. 8. Being aggrieved thereto fresh writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 720 of 2012 has been filed. The learned Single Judge of this Court after taking into consideration the applicability of the resolution, has passed the order upon the Respondents for consideration of the claim by antedating the date of promotion from 11.10.2008 to 28.05.2007 instead of allowing the writ petition by directing the Respondent Board for consideration of promotion to be given sometime in the year 2005. L.P.A. No. 516 of 2022 9. The writ petitioner has filed an appeal being L.P.A. No. 516 of 2022 challenging the impugned order on the ground that the prayer made for promotion from the year 2005 by antedating his promotion from 11.10.2008, instead thereof, directing to consider for promotion from 28.05.2007, cannot be said to be justifiable. 10. It requires to refer herein that the instant L.P.A. is barred by limitation of 777 days. The defect has been pointed out, since, even no condonation application has been filed for condoning such inordinate delay. 11. This Court, in absence of any condonation application showing cause to be sufficient to condone the delay, is of the view that instant appeal is to be dismissed. Accordingly, L.P.A. No. 516 of 2022 is dismissed. L.P.A. No. 189 of 2019 12. The Board has filed L.P.A. No. 189 of 2019 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge inter alia on the ground that it is not available for the Writ Court in exercise the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondent for grant of promotion, since, the promotion is not a fundamental right and as such the impugned order suffers from illegality and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 13. In the instant appeal it is only to be considered whether the order directing the respondents for consideration of antedating the date of promotion of the writ petitioner from 11.10.2008 to 28.05.2007 suffers from any illegality? 7 14. The law is well settled that the rules, regulations or resolutions governing the field of recruitment / promotion is to be considered i.e., when one of the other employee become eligible to get such promotion so as to the case be considered by constituting departmental promotion committee. 15. This Court on the basis of aforesaid proceeding has to examine as to whether the case of the writ petitioner is fit to be considered w.e.f. from 28.05.2007 or 11.10.2008, the date, when the writ petitioner had already been granted promotion based upon the resolution dated 28.05.2007. 16. But before answering this issue, it requires to refer herein the provision made in the resolution dated 23.10.1999 and 28.05.2007. The resolution dated 23.10.1999 is available at the paper book at page 68 from which it appears that the Board has taken resolution being resolution no.7460 dated 19.06.1999 by which the minimum qualifying period of service for promotion from one post to another in respect of Legal Wing of the Board has been provided in the manner as given below: (i) Legal Supervisor Grade-II to Legal Supervisor Grade-I (ii) Legal Supervisor Grade-I to to Law Officer 8 years 8 years (iii) Law Officer to Dy. Law Advisor 6 years 16(i). It further appears from para 2 thereof wherein the minimum period of service for candidates belonging to the scheduled caste/ scheduled tribes for promotion to the selection grade or to the next higher grade, has been relaxed by one year less than what has been mentioned above for the candidates not belonging to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribes. The aforesaid order has been treated to be regulation framed by the Board, in exercise of power conferred under Section -79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948, for reference the entire resolution is being referred:- “Resolution No. X/L/TR-6002/97/1087 Sub:- Time Limit for promotion from one post to another for the Scheduled Cast/Scheduled tribes and General Candidates In pursuance of Board’s resolution No. 7460 dated 19.06.1999 , the Board has fixed the minimum qualifying period of services for 8 promotion from one post to another in respect of Legal Wing of the Board in the manner given below: (i) Legal Supervisor Grade-II to Legal Supervisor Grade-I (ii) Legal Supervisor Grade-I to Law Officer (iii) Law Officer to Dy. Law Advisor 8 years 8 years 6 years 2. The minimum period of service for candidates belonging to the scheduled cast/scheduled tribes for promotion to the selection grade or to the next higher grade, will be one year less than what has been mentioned above for the candidates not belonging to the scheduled cast/scheduled tribes. The above order shall be treated as regulation framed by the 3. Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section-79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Actt.1948. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Law Service Cadre rules 1999 and all cadre rules will stand amended accordingly in respect of Legal wing. 4. retrospective. The effect of this resolution will be prospective and not By the order of the Bihar State Electricity Board S. Atique Ullah, Joint Secretary” 17. It is evident from the perusal of the stipulation made in the order dated 23.10.1999 that the 7 years tenure is required for consideration of promotion to the higher post so far as it relates to the in service candidates belonging to the scheduled caste category. The petitioner, apparently, belonged to the scheduled caste category. The JSEB now JUVNL has come out with its own rules / regulations for dealing with the promotional issues by curving out the resolution no. 1154 dated 28.05.2007 whereby and where under the minimum period in a cadre, for the scheduled caste category candidate, has been made to 5 years by giving 1 year relaxation, for reference, the rules so made in exercise of power conferred under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 is being referred again: JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa Ranchi-834004 (Department of Personnel) Resolution No. 1154 Dated 28.05.2007 Sub: Relaxation in KALAWADHI for promotion on one post to another for SC/ST and General Candidates in Legal Wing. Bihar State Electricity Board vide Resolution No. 1087 dated 23.10.1999 fixed the minimum qualifying period of service for promotion from one post to another in respect of Legal Wing of the Board in the manner given below: 1. Legal Supervisor-II to Legal Supervisor-I 8 years 2. Legal Supervisor-I to Law Officer 8 years One year less for SC/ST candidates. 2.The Board vide its Resolution No. 436 after due consideration has decided to relax the above minimum qualifying period for promotion from one post to another in respect of Legal Wing in the 9 manner given below: 1. Legal Supervisor-II to Legal Supervisor-I 6 years 2. Legal Supervisor-I to Law Officer 6 years One year less for SC/St candidates. 3.The above order shall be treated as regulation framed by the Board in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The Bihar State Electricity Board Law Service Cadre Rules 1999 and all Cadre Rules will stand amended to the above effect accordingly in respect of Legal Wing. 4.The effect of this Resolution will be prospective and not retrospective. By order of Jharkhand State Electricity Board. Sd/- (S.N. Prasad) Joint Secretary-III 18. This Court deems it fit to make a note herein that although the resolution dated 23.10.1999 was in exercise of the power conferred under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, from the date, when, the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 was in vogue and further the day when the resolution dated 28.05.2007 has been brought into force in supersession to the resolution dated 23.10.1999, which is also under the power conferred under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act of 1948, but the question arises when the Electricity Act, 2003 came into being, where is the question of exercising the power conferred under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, since, after coming into effect Electricity Act, 2003, all the acts, rules and regulations even the Electricity Act, 1910 and the Supply Code, 1948 stand repealed. 19. But since this is not before us, we are not making any remark upon the same. 20. Be that as it may, the issue before this Court is regarding date of entitlement of the writ petitioner for consideration of promotion, whether from 11.10.2008 or from 24.04.2007 and as such, this Court is required to decide the same issue based upon findings in this regard by the learned Single Judge. 21. The law is well settled that the rules for promotion will be applicable for an employee the day when he becomes eligible for consideration. The matter would have been different if the concerned employee will be eligible after repealment of earlier resolution and a new rules / regulation having been brought in force, in such circumstances, the consideration will be given on the basis of the successive rules not on the basis of the repealed law. 22. Herein the writ petitioner, admittedly became eligible on the basis 10 of the minimum period of tenure in the cadre of legal supervisor Grade-I, on completion of 7 years of service i.e., 24.04.2007, in the date when the resolution dated 23.10.1999 was in vogue. 23. Further, the new resolution has come into being on 28.05.2007, therefore, the minimum period of 5 years as per the new rule of 28.05.2007 will not be applicable for the writ petitioner. The reason being that the writ petitioners become eligible on completion of 7 years of service on 24.04.2007. 24. This Court after having discussed the aforesaid facts and legal issues and coming back to the order passed by the learned Single Judge has found therefrom that the learned Single Judge has given a finding that the case of the writ petitioner has to be considered on the basis of resolution dated 28.05.2007. 25. This Court is not in agreement with the said finding, reason being, that the writ petitioner became eligible on 24.04.2007 the day when the resolution dated 23.10.1999 was in vogue. 26. However the finding to the effect that by virtue of that the writ petitioner became eligible to get promotion from 24.04.2007 but he has been granted promotion w.e.f. 11.10.2008, as such, the findings so far as it relates to the direction to consider the case of the petitioner for antedating his promotion from 11.10.2008 to 28.05.2007, in our considered view, requires modification, since, the writ petitioner became eligible from 24.04.2007. 27. Therefore, the order impugned is hereby modified to the extent that the case of the writ petitioner is required to be considered for promotion to the post of Law Officer w.e.f. 24.04.2007 based upon the resolution dated 23.10.1999. 28. The appeal has been filed on the ground that there cannot be any direction for promotion to be passed by the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no dispute that promotion cannot be claimed by way of a right. It is settled position of law that getting promotion has not been treated to be a fundamental right, rather right of consideration for promotion has been held to be a fundamental right as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, (2022) 6 SCC 105 : 14. ---- The law on this aspect is settled by this Court in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai [Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, 11 (2022) 12 SCC 579]: “41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty [Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty, (1991) 2 SCC 295 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 472] in para 4 of the Report which is reproduced below : (SCC p. 299) in our view ‘4. … There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with the relevant rules. From this perspective the conclusion [Pravat Kiran Mohanty v. State of Orissa, 1984 SCC OnLine Ori 268] of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of the respondent-writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.’ 42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab [Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1239] , laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her's fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27 : (SCC pp. 227-28) ‘Articles 14 and 16(1): is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right 22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the “State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws”. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that “here shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State”. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense “equality of opportunity” in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word “employment” being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16(1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be “considered” for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion, which is his personal right. “Promotion” based on to such promotion are equal opportunity and facets of “seniority” attached fundamental right under Article 16(1) 27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1997) 5 *** 12 SCC 201 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1299] and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1550] , if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being “considered” for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be “considered” for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1997) 5 SCC 201 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1299] right from 1950.’ ” 29. This Court on the basis of aforesaid settled position and from consideration of the operative part of the order impugned as under para 9 has found therefrom that there is no mandamus directing the respondent Board to grant promotion to the writ petitioner rather the mandamus is to consider the case of the petitioner and as such, according to our considered view the ground which has been agitated on behalf of the Board- appellant is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the instant appeal being L.P.A. No. 189 of 2019 is disposed of with the modification in the order directing the Respondent Board to consider the case of the writ petitioner for promotion from the post of Legal Supervisor Grade-I to the post of Law Officer in accordance with the resolution dated 23.10.1999 antedating from 11.10.2008 to 24.04.2007. 30. In the result L.P.A. No. 516 of 2022 is dismissed and L.P.A. 189 of 2019 is disposed of. 31. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) A.Mohanty AFR