The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.7826 of 2017 1) Aloka Ku. Pattnaik 2) Mahendra Ku. Das 3) Sarat Ku. Behera 1) State Of Orissa 2) Director, Higher Education, Odisha, BBSR ..... Petitioners Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- ..... CORAM: Opposite Parties Mr. H.M. Dhal, AGA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 29.04.2024 Order No. 07 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
Petitioners was not extended, they approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13558 of 2015. This Court vide order dtd.06.08.015 when directed Opp. Party No. 1 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioners basing on the recommendation so available at Annexure- 11, claim of the Petitioners was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.05.12.2016 under Annexure-13. 4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that since vide Annexure-11 Opp. Party No. 2 submitted the proposal for consideration of the claim basing on the proceeding of the meeting held on 26.09.2013 under Annexure-10, the claim of the Petitioners could not have been rejected on the ground indicated in Annexure- 13. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court. 5. Even though no counter affidavit has been filed by the State, but on instruction Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned AGA contended that since the proposal submitted by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-11 has not been properly done, Govt. has requested Opp. Party No. 2 to submit a fresh proposal and after receipt of such fresh proposal, claim of the Petitioners will be considered afresh. The stand taken in the Page 2 of 6. instruction so provided by the Department in letter dtd.29.04.2024 is quoted hereunder:- “Apropos the subject and reference cited above, I am directed
Arguments
2. Heard Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the Opp. Parties to file show cause as to why the order of rejection dated 05.12.2016 under Annexure-13 shall not be quashed and after hearing the parties be pleased to quash the order of rejection dated 05.12.2016 under Annexure-13. A further direction be issued to the Opp. Parties to grant promotion to the petitioners to the post of Senior Librarian/Chief Librarian w.e.f. 01.01.2014 as per the proceeding dated 26.09.2013 as communicated by the Opp. Party No.1 to the Opp. Party No.2 vide order dated 11.06.2014 under Annexure-10 as well as the recommendation of the Opp. Party No.2 dated 21.05.2015 Page 1 of 6. under Annexure-11, within a date to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. And such other order/orders be passed granting complete relief in favour of the petitioners. And for this act of kindness the petitioners shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. It is contended that on the face of the recommendation made by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-11 when the benefit as due to the
Decision
to say that the petitioners in both the writ petitions were working as Asst. Librarians in different non Govt. aided colleges and in the captioned writ petitions while they have challenged the office order containing rejection of their claim vide No. 34507/HE, dtd.05.12.2016 placed under annexure-13 and annexure-15 of the above said writ petitions respectively, have made prayer for quashment of the said order of rejection and also for issue of further direction to State opposite parties to grant promotion to the said petitioners to the post of Sr. Librarians / Chief Librarian w.e.f. 01.01.2014 as per proceedings of the meeting of the library committee held on 26.09.2013 in Higher Education Department under the Chairmanship of Additional Secretary to consider different demands of the library association as communicated by the opposite party No. I to the opposite party No. 2 vide Letter No. 12866/HE, dtd.1.06.2014 under annexure-12 as well as the recommendation of the opposite party No. 2 dtd.21.05.2015 under annexure-13 within a stipulated period. In this context, the Hon'ble Court while taking up the matters on 12.03.2024 has been pleased to direct the State Counsel to obtain instruction with regard to the action taken by O.P. No. 1 on the report submitted by O.P. No. 2 in his Letter dtd.21.05.2015 containing his recommendation for promotion of the librarians as per proceedings of the meeting under annexure- 13. That, it is a fact that a meeting of the library committee was held on 26.09.2013 in Higher Education Department under the chairmanship Ex. Addl. Secretary of the Department to consider different demands put forth by the General Secretary of the Utkal Library Association. The said committee at proceeding point No. 7 discussed about the promotion of the Government and non Page 3 of 6. Government college librarians. The outcome of the proceedings of proceeding point No. 7 reflects that discussion on the issue of promotion was held in the committee meeting where it was decided that the Director Higher Education will examine and submit a proposal for promotion of the Librarians like other teaching staff of the colleges. Accordingly, the proceedings of the meeting of the Library committee dtd. 26.09.2013 along with the recommendations were forwarded to the Director, Higher Education for necessary follow up vide Letter No. 12866/HE, dtd. 11.06.2014 under annexure-12. So far as the issue of promotion of the Government and non Government college librarians is concerned, it was decided that Director, Higher Education will examine and submit a proposal for further follow up action at the level of Government and accordingly the Directorate of Higher Education was communicated the appropriate letter under annexure-12. In the meantime, the Director, Higher Education vide annexure-13 (Letter No. 19402/dtd.21.05.2015 sent a proposal incorporating a statement showing the promotional avenue of the librarian staff working in different Government and non Government colleges. It was proposed that from the Sr. Librarian, the promotional avenue of the Chief Librarians, for librarian such promotional post is Sr. Librarian and for Graduate Librarian, non Graduate Librarian, Jr. Librarian and Asst. Librarian such promotional avenue as Librarian. However. though the Director, Higher Education (O.P. No. 2) was required to examine the proposal of promotion of the Librarians working in different Government and non Government colleges in detail and thereafter to submit proposal with proper justification, actually the proposal received from O.P. No. 2 did not contain any detailed examination of the issue nor any such justification from his side could be revealed to take further follow up on the proceeding point -7 of the Page 4 of 6. Library Committee meeting dtd.26.09.2013. Thus, the matter could not proceed further. In the meantime, the Director, Higher Education has been requested to revisit the proposal sent by him on the issue under discussion and after thorough examination may submit his proposal with proper justification to take a decision in this regard. Soon after, such report from the O.P. No. 2 is received, appropriate steps shall be taken to consider such proposal within the frame works of law.” 5.1. Mr. Dhal, learned AGA accordingly contended that since Opp. Party No. 1 is awaiting a fresh proposal from Opp. Party No. 2 on the claim of the Petitioners, only after receipt of such proposal, a fresh decision can be taken. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made as well as the instruction provided to this Court by the Department, this Court is of the view that since prior to receipt of the fresh proposal as sought for, claim of the Petitioners has been rejected vide impugned order dtd.05.12.2016 under Annexure-13, this Court is inclined to quash the said order. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to submit a fresh proposal basing on the request made by Opp. Party No. 1 so reflected in letter dtd.29.04.2024 of Opp. Party No. 1 within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. 6.1. It is observed that on receipt of such fresh proposal from Opp. Party No. 2, Opp. Party No. 1 shall take a lawful decision on the same within a further period of two (2) months. Page 5 of 6. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-May-2024 18:49:34 Page 6 of 6.