The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No.6739 OF 2023 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) ******* Naresh Naik …. Petitioner District And Sessions Judge, Angul and others …. Opp. Parties -versus-
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. M.K. Rath, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Umesh Chandra Behura, Additional Government Advocate
Decision
CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Heard and Disposed of on : 01.05.2025 JUDGMENT By the Bench:- 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to set aside the order dated 23rd February, 2023 (Annexure-2) issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Angul, by which his juniors were promoted. He also prays for a direction to promote him to the post of Process Server with effect from the date his juniors were promoted. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Rath, learned counsel that the Petitioner, who belongs to SC community was initially appointed as Night Watchman on 1st September, 2009 in the judgeship of Angul. In the year, 2012 the Petitioner was transferred and posted as W.P.(C). No.6739 of 2023 Page 1 of 4 Orderly Peon under Sub-Judge, Athamallik. The Petitioner was also posted in other places within Angul judgeship. In the gradation list of ministerial staff for Angul judgeship prepared in the year 2022 the Petitioner was at Sl. No.3 in the category of Daftary (Group-C). The name of Opposite Party No.3 was at Sl. No.2 in the category of Zamadar. But, he had forgone promotion permanently along with the incumbent at Sl. No.1 in the gradation list. The name of Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 8 found place at Sl. Nos. 14, 23, 24, 27 and 31 in the gradation list. Thus, the Petitioner was the senior most employee to get promotion to the cadre of Process Server. In the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting convened on 17th February, 2023, the case of the Petitioner was not considered. On the other hand, his juniors at Sl. Nos. 14, 23, 24, 27 and 31 were promoted to the cadre of Process Server. It is submitted that the Petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria for promotion to the cadre of Daftary. But the Departmental Promotion Committee ignoring the case of the Petitioner recommended promotion of his juniors. Hence, the Petitioner being aggrieved has filed this Writ application seeking for the aforesaid relief. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by Opposite Party No.1 stating that during incumbency of the Petitioner as Orderly Peon in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge -cum- Registrar, Civil Courts, Angul the Petitioner did not perform his duties properly and he remained absent from duties. Thus, three departmental proceedings in D.P. Nos. 14, 15 & 16 of 2020 were initiated against the Petitioner. The Petitioner was held guilty in all the D.Ps. 5. In D.P. No. 14 of 2020, the Petitioner was held guilty vide order dated 12th January, 2021 and was warned not to repeat such mistake in future. In the said proceeding, the Petitioner was W.P.(C). No.6739 of 2023 Page 2 of 4 censured and his absence from duty for the period from 1st December, 2019 to 15th December, 2019 was treated as unauthorized absence from duty for which it was directed that the Petitioner would not be entitled to any pay for the said period. 6. In D.P. No. 15 of 2020, the Petitioner was held guilty and imposed with punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 29th June, 2021. Further, the period of absence of the Petitioner from duty from 23rd March, 2020 to 1st November, 2020 was treated as such without any pay. 7. Likewise, in D.P No. 16 of 2020, the Petitioner, being found guilty, was imposed with punishment of withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 18th June, 2021. 8. In the counter affidavit, it is also stated that although the case of the Petitioner was taken into consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee, but, keeping in view of the punishments imposed upon him and considering the performance report of the Petitioner, the DPC found him not suitable for promotion to the cadre of Process Server. 9. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, submits that on 17th February, 2023, on which date the DPC was convened, the Departmental Proceedings were over and the orders of punishment in the aforesaid departmental proceedings had spent their force. Thus, the same could not have been taken into consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee to deny promotion to the Petitioner to the cadre of Process Server. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the order under Annexure-2. 10. Mr. Behura, learned Additional Government Advocate made submission reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit. W.P.(C). No.6739 of 2023 Page 3 of 4 He further submitted that the Petitioner cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. He has the right to be considered for promotion, if he is otherwise eligible for the same. In the instant case, the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the name of the Petitioner. But, he was not found suitable for promotion as he was found guilty in three departmental proceedings and his performance report was not satisfactory. Thus, there is no illegality in refusing promotion to the Petitioner. As such, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. 11. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of documents placed, this Court finds that in all the aforesaid proceedings, the Petitioner was found guilty. He was also imposed with major punishment in D.P. No. 15 of 2020. The punishment imposed in the said proceeding was in vogue at the time of consideration of his case for promotion. It further appears that keeping in view the punishment imposed on the Petitioner in the Departmental Proceedings as well as his performance report, the Petitioner was not found suitable for promotion. As such, Departmental Promotion Committee has committed no illegality in refusing promotion to the cadre of Process Server. 12. Thus, we find no infirmity in the impugned order under Annexure-2. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 1st Day of May, 2025//Subhalaxmi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 07-May-2025 11:27:06 W.P.(C). No.6739 of 2023 (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge Page 4 of 4