The High Court · 2024
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Dec-2024 15:11:17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 7088 of 2022 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Ramakanta Mohanta .…… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ……. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. A.K.Chhatoi, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.C.Sahoo, Advocate for O.P.No.6 to 21 Ms.B.L.Tripathy, ASC Mr.S.K.Sahoo, Advocate for O.P.5(OPSC) CORAM : JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 28th November 2024 B.P. Routray,J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K.Chhatoi, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.C.Sahoo learned counsel for private-Opposite Parties 6 to 21, Mr.S.K.Sahoo, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.5 and Ms. B.L.Tripathy, learned ASC for State-Opposite Party. 2. The Petitioner claims for his promotion to the cadre of Odisha Revenue Service (ORS) (Group-B) by way of promotion. He W.P.(C) No.7088 of 2022 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Dec-2024 15:11:17 was serving as a Revenue Inspector (RI) and according to the Odisha Revenue Service (Recruitment Rules), 2011, as amended from time to time, 60% of the promotional quota to be filled up by Ministerial Staffs and 40% by Revenue Field Staffs in terms of the proviso to Clause-B to Rule-4 of 2011 Rules. 3. It is the contention of the Petitioner that despite he was coming under the Revenue Field Staff category, but was not selected against the 40% quota and has been illegally rejected in the selection held by the Committee on 5th November 2021. The State has filed its counter affidavit stating that since the Petitioner did not fulfil the guideline of five outstanding grading in his CCR, his case was rejected upon consideration by the Selection Committee. 4. The private Opposite Parties have also filed their counter stating that the allegation of violation of 40% quota meant for Revenue Field Staff is not correct since out of 188 posts, 113 posts were meant for Ministerial Staff and rest 75 posts were meant for Revenue Field Staff. The Selection Committee has made selection of 102 candidates of Ministerial Staffs and 52 candidates of Revenue Field Staff. Therefore, the entire allegations levelled against the private Opposite Parties that the Ministerial Staff have intruded into the quota meant for Revenue Field Staff is not correct. 5. The figures as detailed with regard to both categories in the ratio of 40:60, as detailed in Paragraph-11 of the writ petition, is admitted by private Opposite Parties as well as the State. It is thus seen that according to the Petitioner the entire quota of 40% meant for Revenue Field Staff is not filled up so also 60% quota meant for W.P.(C) No.7088 of 2022 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Dec-2024 15:11:17 Ministerial Staff, since total number of candidates selected are 153 as per Annexure-8. Accordingly, the allegation of the Petitioner that there was a violation of the quota meant for Revenue Field Staff is not found correct. 6. So far as the legality of rejection of candidature of the Petitioner by the Selection Committee is concerned, according to State-Opposite Parties, the Petitioner did not fulfil the required criteria of five outstanding grades to be selected in the process. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the prescription of requirement of five outstanding grades by way of guideline is violative of Rule of procedure prescribed in 2011 Rules. 8. Rule-11 of ORS Rules 2011 speaks as follows :- “11.Procedure for Selection by the Committee:- (1) The Committee shall meet at least once in a year preferably in the month of January to prepare two separate lists of officers, as are held by the,. Suitable for promotion and selection to the service taking into account the existing vacancies and the anticipated vacancies of the years. (2) The Committee while considering the cases of suitable officers and preparation of the list shall follow the provisions of- (a) The Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975 and the rules made there under or any other law/rules in force at the relevant time. W.P.(C) No.7088 of 2022 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Dec-2024 15:11:17 (b) The Orissa Civil Services Consideration for Promotion) Rules, 1988. (Zone of The Orissa Civil Services (Criteria for (c) Promotion)Rules, 1992 and (d) The Orissa Civil Services (Criteria for Selection for Appointment including Promotion) Rules, 2003. 9. As seen from above, the Odisha Civil Services (Criteria for Promotion) Rules, 1992 and the Odisha Civil Service (Criteria for Selection of Appointment including Promotion) Rules, 2003 are applicable in the matters of promotion to the cadre of Odisha Revenue Service. 10. The OCS (Criteria for Promotion) Rules, 1992 speaks of merit and suitability in all respect with due regard to seniority. Rule 3 (c) authorizes the Departmental Promotion Committee or the Selection Committee, as the case may be, to scrutinize preceding five available annual Confidential Character Roles and other documents having a bearing on the performance and conduct of eligible officers. Further, Rule-4 (b) of 2011 Rules prescribes that the officers to be considered for promotion should be of outstanding merit. Accordingly, in the notification dated 18th October 2020 inviting applications for filling of posts on promotion it was mentioned at Para-5 for furnishing preceding five years available CCRs/PARs of the candidates. A careful reading of the provisions contained in Rule- 3 of the OCS (Criteria for Promotion) Rules, 1992 and Rule-4 (b) of ORS Rules, 2011 does not make the decision of the Selection Committee requiring five outstanding grades in CCR as illegal or violative of prescribed Rules. When it is admitted that the Petitioner W.P.(C) No.7088 of 2022 Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Dec-2024 15:11:17 has three outstanding CCRs only, by the time of consideration for recruitment on promotion, he was rightly rejected by the Selection Committee for not having the required number of outstanding CCRs. As such, the Petitioner also fails in his contention here to impugn the selection process rejecting his case. 11. For the reasons stated above, no merit is seen in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Judge (B.P. Routray) Sangram,Sr.Steno W.P.(C) No.7088 of 2022 Page 5 of 5