Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 7325 OF 2012 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. --------------- AFR Abhimanyu Jena ..… Petitioner -Versus- National Aluminium Company ….. Opp. Parties and others For Petitioner : M/s. S. Mallik, P.C. Das and M. Mallik, Advocates For Opp. Parties : Mr. M. Mishra, Sr. Advocate along with M/s. T. Mishra, J.K. Mohapatra and S. Mishra, Advocates [O.P.Nos. 1 & 2] P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of hearing: 14.11.2023:: Date of judgment: 21.11.2023 DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioner, being an employee of National Aluminium Company (hereinafter to be referred Page 1 of 32 to as ‘NALCO’), has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Annexure-4, the list of executives promoted by DPC, June 2008 (so far as promotion of opposite parties no.4 to 7 from E-4 to E-5 grade is concerned), and further seeks to quash the order dated 10/11.09.2008 under Annexure-6 passed by the Chief Manager (HRD) rejecting his representation; and also the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in T.A. No.46 of 2009 (arising out of W.P.(C) No.3489 of 2009) under Annexure-9 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion from the date opposite parties no.4 to 7 were promoted to the grade/rank of E-5 category despite his higher position in the seniority list and achievement of the required percentage in the appraisal rating. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner, who is a Science Graduate in Chemical Engineering and also acquired MBA in Finance Marketing, Page 2 of 32 joined in the executive cadre of NALCO-opposite party no.1 in the year 1989. He was promoted to the executive grade on 20.04.1991 and was further promoted as Manager (Chemical)-E-4 grade vide order dated 1/5.01.2002 with effect from 01.07.2001. In the gradation list published in the year 2006, the petitioner was shown at sl.no.1 and opposite parties no.4 to 7 were shown at sl.nos.6, 8, 9 and 10 in the E-4 grade respectively. Besides the above noted opposite parties, S. Pradhan, P. Bandopadhya and K. Samal were also shown as junior to the petitioner. In the year 2006, S. Pradhan was promoted to E-5 grade superseding the petitioner. Similarly, in the year 2007, P. Bandopadhya and K. Samal were promoted to E-5 grade again superseding the petitioner. The petitioner did not challenge their promotion due to non- availability of any information before him. In the gradation list published in the year 2008, again the petitioner was shown at sl.no.1 and opposite parties no.4 to 7 were Page 3 of 32 shown against sl.nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7. But opposite parties no.4 to 7 were promoted to E-5 grade during June 2008. During March, 2012, opposite party no.5 was further promoted to the post of Asst. General Manager. When the juniors to the petitioner, namely, opposite parties no.4 to 7 were promoted to E-5 grade, the petitioner filed representation on 18.08.2008 before opposite party no.2 seeking promotion over and above opposite parties no.4 to 7. But, his representation was rejected vide order dated 10/11.09.2008 on the ground that his performance, conduct, seniority, appraisal rating for last three years vis-à-vis the promoted colleagues are lower standard and, therefore, the petitioner was not promoted. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner applied for appraisal rating for the period from 2001 to 2008. In response to the same, vide letter dated 17.09.2008, the petitioner was communicated his appraisal rating as done by the authority in the following manner:- Page 4 of 32 “Year 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Appraisal rating A 85.48 Not available B 62.53 B 73.32 B 74.32 A 84.66 A 83.25” 2.1. On receipt of the appraisal rating supplied to the petitioner, finding no way out, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3489 of 2009. But subsequently in view of the notification of the Central Government, since the jurisdiction was conferred on the Central Administrative Tribunal to decide the service matter of NALCO, this Court transferred the said writ petition to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack and ultimately the same was registered as T.A. No. 46 of 2009. In the said petition, referring the NALCO Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Executive, the petitioner took the plea that he should have been Page 5 of 32 given promotion as per the said Rules, as at no point of time he was communicated with the adverse remark. The petitioner further stated that he is senior to opposite parties no.4 to 7 and, therefore, the promotion of opposite parties no.4 to 7 to E-5 grade be quashed and he should be promoted to E-5 grade from the date opposite parties no.4 to 7 were given promotion to the said grade. 2.2. Pursuant to the notice, NALCO filed counter affidavit pointing out that as per Rule-1.1.22.5, DPC assessed the merit position of eligible executives taking into account factors like appraisal rating, seniority, interview/assessment. Since the appraisal rating of opposite parties no.4 to 7 were better than the petitioner, they were given promotion. Further, opposite parties no.1 to 3, vide memo dated 30.11.2011, made it clear that an employee can see his/her ratings and the notes of reporting officer but rules and guidelines of NALCO do not enumerate that final appraisal rating to be communicated Page 6 of 32 to the employee. Therefore, the final appraisal rating has not been communicated to the petitioner. It was further stated that since the petitioner secured more than 50% in the appraisal ratings such appraisal ratings being not adverse, the circumstance for communicating the same to the petitioner did not arise. 2.3. In response to the counter affidavit, the petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit contending that appraisal ratings of the petitioner vis-à-vis opposite parties no.4 to 7 are adverse and, therefore, the authority should have communicated the same to the petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
The petitioner further stated that it is well settled law that every entry/rating must be communicated to an employee within a reasonable period and it makes no difference whether there is a bench mark or not. Further, nomenclature of the entry/rating is not relevant, it is the effect which the entry/rating is having which determines whether it is an adverse entry or not. Thereby, the Page 7 of 32 petitioner stated that grant of more than 50% score is of no satisfaction to the employee, if it, in fact, makes him ineligible for promotion as has happened. Since on a totality and comparison of facts, the appraisal ratings for the years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 were adverse entries and as those were not communicated to the petitioner, those entries should not have been taken into consideration by the DPC for promotion to the E-5 grade. Consequentially, the petitioner should have been considered for promotion from the date opposite parties no.4 to 7 were given promotion. It was further stated that the counter affidavit filed by NALCO is totally silent on the marks awarded under the heading seniority and interview to all, as required under Rule-1.11.22.5 of NALCO Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Executive. Thereby, the promotion given to opposite parties no.4 to 7 to E-5 category is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the Page 8 of 32 provisions of law and hence, sought for interference of the tribunal. 2.4. After due adjudication, the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed T.A. No.46 of 2009, vide Annexure-9 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Mr. S. Mallik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the marks awarded under the heading seniority and interview, as required under Rule-1.11.22.5 of NALCO Recruitment and Promotion Rules for executive has not been provided and, as such, this fact has not been taken into consideration by the tribunal while passing the order impugned in Annexure-9. It is further contended that on the basis of the appraisal rating which has been placed on record by way of filing counter affidavit in respect of the petitioner vis-à-vis opposite parties no.4 to 7 is adverse. Therefore, the authority should have communicated the same in Page 9 of 32 view of the settled law laid down by the apex Court that every entry/rating must be communicated to an employee within a reasonable period and it makes no difference whether there is a bench mark or not and further, nomenclature of the entry/rating is not relevant, it is the effect which the entry/rating is having, which determines whether it is an adverse entry or not. Thereby, grant of 50% score is of no satisfaction to the employee if it in fact makes him ineligible for promotion as has happened in the case of the petitioner. It is further contended that since on a totality and comparison of facts, the appraisal ratings for the years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 were adverse entries and since those were not communicated to the petitioner, those entries should not have been taken into consideration by the DPC for promotion to the E-5 grade. Thereby, non-communication of such adverse remark is illegal and as a consequence thereof, the promotion given to the juniors to the Page 10 of 32 petitioner, namely, opposite parties no.4 to 7 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. As such, the order of promotion given to opposite parties no.4 to 7 vide Annexure-4, the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-6 and the final order passed by the tribunal vide Annexure-9 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and seeks for quashing of the same. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India and others, (2008) SCC 725. 4. Mr. Manoj Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. T. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite parties-NALCO vehemently contended that the promotion having been considered in accordance with the provisions contained in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1997 and the petitioner having not satisfied the criteria specified in such rules, he was not promoted. It is further contended that invoking the provision under the Page 11 of 32 Right to Information Act, the petitioner sought for his appraisal rating and the same was also given to him vide letter dated 17.09.2008 by the Public Information Officer. But in spite of having the information regarding his appraisal rating of the eligible period, which was considered by the DPC-2008, the petitioner preferred not to represent on the said appraisal rating. Therefore, if the petitioner was aware of the appraisal rating which was considered during DPC-2008, he should have moved the authority by filing appropriate application. Instead of doing so, the petitioner, having participated in the process of promotion and being not come out successful, cannot challenge the same by way of approaching the tribunal. Consequentially, the tribunal came to a finding that in view of the rules applicable to the petitioner, he cannot seek relief as has been claimed in the present writ petition. Thereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the authority giving Page 12 of 32 promotion to the opposite parties no.4 to 7, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. To substantiate the contention, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party-NALCO relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India (UOI), (2013) 9 SCC 566: AIR 2013 SC 2741. 5. This Court heard Mr. S. Mallik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. T. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3- NALCO. Though notice was issued to opposite parties no.4 to 7 and the same has been made sufficient as against the said opposite parties, opposite parties no.4 to 6 did not choose to appear, as they have stepped into the shoes of opposite parties no.1 to 3. So far as opposite party no.7 is concerned, even though notice has been made sufficient as against the said opposite party, he has Page 13 of 32 not appeared, as he was retired from service in the meantime. Therefore, a memo was filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking to delete the name of opposite party no.7 and vide order dated 03.08.2023, his name has been deleted at the risk of the petitioner. Since notice issued to the opposite parties no.4 to 7 has already been made sufficient and it is an old matter of the year 2012, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. It is brought to our notice that all the Executives of NALCO are guided under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1997 (hereinafter to be referred as “R&P Rules, 1997”), which was approved by the Board of Directors of the Company in its 114th meeting held on 30.06.1997 and effective from 18.03.1997. The said R&P Rules, 1997 and amendments thereof from time to time considering the organizational need have been placed on Page 14 of 32 record as Annexure-B/1 to the counter affidavit filed by NALCO. Before delving into the issue involved in this case, it is worthwhile to refer to the relevant provisions of the R&P Rules, 1997. 7. Clause-1.1.20.0 of the R&P Rules, 1997 provides general principles. Clause-1.1.20.1 reads as under: the chief executive on “Promotion from one level to another shall be made by the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). DPCs shall meet ordinarily once in a year in June.” xxx xxx xxx Clause-1.1.21.0 envisages about qualifying period. Sub- clause-1.1.21.3 thereof provides as under:- “For promotion from E-2 and upto E-7, the qualifying period of service in the Company for this purpose shall be three years for executives prescribed possessing qualification; provided that the qualifying period of service shall, for the purpose of promotion up to E-4 level, be: (a) Five not for possessing the prescribed qualification executives years Page 15 of 32 but possessing the relaxed qualification; and (b) Seven years possessing the relaxed qualification. xxx executives not xxx” xxx for Clause-1.1.22.0 states about promotion System. Sub- clause-1.1.22.3 thereof provides as under:- “Promotions to all other grades shall be vacancy based and on merit only” Clause-1.1.22.4 provides as under: “The candidates selected for promotion shall be based on the recommendation of the DPC considering merit, seniority, qualification etc. If the candidates with the prescribed ratings are not available, promotions to such an extent, as may be necessary, may not withstanding indicated above” the percentage be withheld Clause-1.1.22.5 provides as under: Promotion will be on the basis of the following factors: (a) Appraisal rating 80 marks (b) Seniority 10 marks (40% the for current appraisal the period and rest 60% to be equally distributed each balance eligibility period) (2.50 marks for every completed year beyond the on of year Page 16 of 32 (c) Interview/As sessment of Departmenta l Promotion Committee Total eligibility period) 10 marks 100 marks The Chief Executive is competent to review and vary the above. Clause-1.1.22.6 provides as under: “While recommending promotions to vacancy based posts, the DPC in addition to considering it, shall hold the records, placed before interviews of eligible executives. Candidates called for interview shall be in the following ratio (number of vacancies vis-à-vis number of called): Number of vacancies 1 2 3 and above Number of candidates to be called for interview 5 8 3 times the number of vacancies The list of eligible candidates will be maintained in order of merit in descending order based on the Appraisal Ratings and seniority weightage. Clause-1.1.31.0 states about Appeal. Sub-clause-1.1.31.1 thereof provides as under:- “Any employee, who is aggrieved by an order of promotion on the ground that he has been Page 17 of 32 superseded, may appeal his case to the competent authority through proper channel within a month of the date of issue of the order granting such promotion.” 8. NALCO, being a Public Sector Undertaking under Government of India, is bound by the norms prescribed by various guidelines of Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) along with Presidential directives applicable to Public Sector Undertakings to deal with SC/ST and other reserved categories for employment as well as for promotion. Therefore, for promotion of executives, they are guided by the R&P Rules, 1997 and for the purpose of better appreciation, relevant clauses of R&P Rules, 1997 have been referred to above. It is of relevance to note that NALCO, being a Public Sector Undertaking, has its own Performance Appraisal System for assessment of executives through evaluation of various factors like tasks and targets, performance and potential factors. For executive performance appraisal system, there exists a procedure manual wherein the procedure and Page 18 of 32 guidelines for filling up of the appraisals and rationalization process is enumerated. Clause-9.5 states about performance assessment (Functional/Technical Competencies)- (Form-D2). For better appreciation, Sub- clause-9.5.2.4 of Procedure Manual for executive performance appraisal system is extracted hereunder: “If the weighted score for any performance factor is less than 50%, a communication is to be made to the concerned executive by the Appraisal Cell, Corporate Office/Complexes through the Reporting Officer for corrective action by the Appraisee.” Clause-9.6 states about potential assessment (Managerial Competencies)- (Form-D2). For the sake of clarity, Sub- clause-9.6.2.4 of Procedure Manual for executive performance appraisal system is extracted hereunder: “If the weighted score for any potential factor is less than 40%, a communication is to be made to the concerned executive by the Appraisal Cell, Corporate Office/Complexes through the Reporting Officer for corrective action by the Appraisee.” 9. In view of the aforementioned provisions, if the weighted score for any performance factor is less than Page 19 of 32 50%, a communication is to be made to the concerned executive by the appraisal cell, corporate office/complexes through the reporting officer for corrective action by the appraisee. As it appears, the information which has been provided to the petitioner under the RTI Act with regard to appraisal rating, as mentioned above, the petitioner has not satisfied the requirement of clauses-9.5.2.4 and 9.6.2.4 so as to make any communication through his reporting officer for corrective action, as he secured more than 50% weightage. As per the R&P Rules, 1997, while recommending for promotion, the DPC assesses the suitability of executives in a particular cadre and grade by deriving a comparative merit position substantiated by various relevant factors such as performance, conduct, seniority, appraisal ratings of last three years as well as vacancy position and/or cut-off percentage earmarked for the concerned grade. Therefore, taking all the above factors into consideration, the DPC found the petitioner’s Page 20 of 32 merit position at a lower stage, compared to his promoted colleagues and did not recommend his case for promotion and, as such, seniority was not only the criteria for promotion. Merely because the petitioner is senior to opposite parties no.4 to 7, that ipso facto cannot give him promotion contrary to the provisions of R&P Rules, 1997. 10. As required under clause-1.1.31.1 of the R&P Rules, 1997, the petitioner preferred appeal being aggrieved by the order of promotion on the ground that he has been superseded by his juniors. The said appeal was duly examined by the competent authority and the decision of the competent authority was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 10.09.2008 that the DPC has not recommended his case for promotion since DPC found that the petitioner’s merit position was at a lower stage in comparison to opposite parties no.4 to 7 in his cadre and grade. It is made clear that the petitioner joined as a Graduate Engineering Trainee (GET) on 20.04.1989 Page 21 of 32 at Smelter Plant, Smelter & Power Complex, Angul and subsequently got promoted to the post of Jr. Manager (Chemical) at E1 grade w.e.f. 20.04.1991, Asst. Manager (Chemical) at E2 grade w.e.f. 01.07.1993, Dy. Manager (Chemical) at E3 grade w.e.f. 01.07.1998 and Manager (Chemical) at E4 grade w.e.f. 01.07.2001. As per clause- 1.1.30.1 of the R&P Rules, 1997, seniority list of executives shall be suitably maintained in each category of posts as per the cadre scheme. Seniority inter se will be determined by the comparative merit position in the panel both in case of initial appointment as well as promotion. As per clause-1.1.22.3 of the R&P Rules, 1997, promotion from E4, where the petitioner is, to E5 grade, is vacancy based and on merit only. Therefore, as per the R&P Rules, 1997, while recommending for promotion, the DPC assesses the suitability of executives in a particular cadre and grade by deriving a comparative merit position substantiated by various relevant factors, such as, Page 22 of 32 performance, conduct, seniority, appraisal ratings of last three years as well as vacancy position and/or cut-off percentage earmarked for the concerned grade. Therefore, taking all the above factors into consideration, the DPC recommended the meritorious candidates as per the availability of vacancy for promotion to the next higher grade. The appraisal rating of the petitioner which was considered by the DPC in 2008 vis-à-vis the remarks reads as under:- Appraisal period 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 Rating 70.32 (B+) 84.66 (A) 83.25 (A) Overall grading Very Good Excellent Excellent 11. Similarly, the ratings of the petitioner for the said period have been considered by the DPC, 2008 for promotion from E4 to E5 grade are not adverse entries. Since merit is the prime factor for consideration for promotion from E4 to E5 grade, the petitioner’s position was found at a lower stage than the promoted executives Page 23 of 32 in his grade and cadre during DPC, 2008, his case was not recommended for promotion to E5 grade. During DPC, 2008, the petitioner, along with eight other eligible executives, was considered for promotion from E4 to E5 grade. The detail positions during DPC, 2008 the petitioner vis-à-vis opposite parties no.4 to 7 are extracted hereunder:- Sl. Name No. Appraisal rating out of 80 marks Seniority Weightage DPC mark total Recommendation of DPC 1. S. Sarkar 71.78 7.50 8.0 87.28 2. NK Mohapatra 71.93 5.0 8.0 85.43 3. N Behera 71.84 4. NC Behera 69.84 2.5 2.5 8.0 82.34 8.0 80.34 Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable 5. A Jena 63.84 10.00 2.5 76.34 Not suitable 12. As the petitioner’s merit position was found to be at a lower stage compared to the opposite parties no.4 to 7, the claim of the petitioner that his case should have been considered for promotion from the date opposite Page 24 of 32 parties no.4 to 7 are given promotion, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 13. As per the DoPT guidelines, when the petitioner is aware of his appraisal for the periods from 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 through the information provided under the Right to Information Act, vide letter dated 17.09.2008, the contention raised that he is not aware of the appraisal ratings, which were considered during DPC, 2008, is absolutely misconceived one and devoid of any merit. Since the promotion from E4 to E5 cadre, as per clause-1.1.22.3 of the R&P Rules, 1997, is based on vacancy and on merits only and on due adjudication, opposite parties no.4 to 7 have been given promotion, merely because the petitioner was senior, that was not only the criteria for promotion. Consequentially, he cannot claim that he should be granted promotion being senior person over and above opposite parties no.4 to 7 Page 25 of 32 particularly when criteria has been fixed that promotion is vacancy based and on merit only. 14. Much reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision rendered in the case of Dev Dutt (supra), more particularly paragraph-18 of the said judgment, which is extracted hereunder:- it is not only when there “18. Thus, is a benchmark but in all cases that an entry (whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good) must be communicated to a public servant, otherwise there is violation of the principle of fairness, which is the soul of natural justice. Even an outstanding entry should be communicated since that would boost the morale of the employee and make him work harder.” 15. There is no dispute on the aforementioned proposition laid down by the apex Court and, as such, the same is binding to all. But fact remains, nothing has been placed on record to indicate any adverse remarks to the petitioner, as he was rated more than 50%. There is no dispute that R&P Rules, 1997 is applicable to the petitioner. Since his appraisal rating is more than 50%, Page 26 of 32 communication has not been made to the petitioner as per the said rules, which are binding to him. 16. In Sukhdev Singh (supra), where the judgment in Dev Dutt (supra) has been taken into consideration on reference, the apex Court in paragraphs-8 and 10 of the judgment held as follows:- “8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving three fold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to make the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR – poor, fair, average, good or very good- must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period. for upgradation of representation xxx xxx xxx Page 27 of 32 10. Insofar as the present case is concerned, we are informed that the Appellant has already been promoted. In view thereof, nothing more is required to be done. Civil Appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. However, it will be open to the Appellant the concerned authorities for retrospective promotion in view of the legal position stated by us. If such a representation is made by the Appellant, the same shall be considered by the concerned authorities appropriately in accordance with law.” to make a representation to 17. Apart from the above contention, there is no dispute that the petitioner is not aware of the provisions of the rules applicable to him, so far as the R&P Rules, 1997 is concerned. Even though he got information under the Right to Information Act, so far as appraisal rating is concerned, he has not made any grievance before the authority. Rather, he accepted such position and participated in the process of promotion, which has been done in conformity with the provisions of law. As such, at no point of time the petitioner has raised any objection with regard to the manner of conducting promotion by the authority concerned. Therefore, the petitioner has taken a Page 28 of 32 calculated chance and appeared in the DPC and only because the result of the DPC was not palatable to him, he turned around and subsequently contended that the process of DPC was unfair. Being not satisfied with such DPC, the petitioner preferred appeal as provided under the R&P Rules, 1997, which was considered and rejected by the authority. 18. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, AIR 1986 SC 1043, the apex Court held as follows:- the petitioner appeared at that he would not succeed “when the examination without protest and when he found in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.” 19. In Madan Lal v. Stae of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1995 SC 1088, the apex Court held as under:- Page 29 of 32 “……..If a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted.” 20. In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and others, (2011) 1 SCC 150, where the apex Court referred paragraph-18 of the judgment in the case of Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 to the following effect:- “18……….. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure therein were not entitled to question the same.” laid down 21. In Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of A.P., (2007) 11 SCC 522, the apex Court observed as under:- “The other contention of Mr. Rao that the candidates had given only seven days’ time for making preparation to appear in the second screening test, cannot, in our considered view, give rise to a ground for setting aside the entire selection process. Page 30 of 32 The Tribunal did not make any discrimination. One screening test had already been held. The number of candidates appeared in the first screening test was 510. The Commission obtained the permission of the Tribunal for holding the second screening test. It issued a notification on 12.12.2000 stating that such a test would be conducted on 7.1.2001. All the candidates were given time for preparation. Only the same because the appellants herein were employees at the relevant time, the same by itself could not confer on them any special privilege to ask for an extended time. They had no legal right in relation thereto. Appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur. They did not question the validity of the said question of fixing of the said date before the appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from questioning the selection process.” Similar view has also been taken by this Court in Sevati Patra (supra); Pradeep Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha, 2017 (II) OLR 274; Pravati Nayak v. State of Odisha, 2018 (Supp-II) OLR 946; and also judgment dated 02.04.2019 rendered in W.P.(C) No. 14047 of 2012 (Keshari Sahoo v. State of Odisha). Page 31 of 32 22. Taking into consideration the facts and law, as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the authority granting promotion to opposite parties no.4 to 7 vide Annexure-4, as well as the order dated 10/11.09.2008 rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner under Annexure-6 and the order passed by the tribunal in T.A. No.46 of 2009 (arising out of W.P.(C) No. 3489 of 2009) vide Annexure-9 do not warrant interference of this Court. 23. In the result, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. …………….…………..…. DR. B.R. SARANGI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE …………….…………..…. M.S. RAMAN, JUDGE M.S. RAMAN, J. I agree. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 22-Nov-2023 16:23:11 Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 21st November, 2023, Ashok Page 32 of 32