The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5792 of 2024 Suresh Chandra Swain …. Mr. S.J. Mohanty, Advocate Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. T.K. Biswal, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 13.03.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto and the materials placed before this Court. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer : Order No. 01. “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition and issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to; i) Why direction shall not be given to the Opp Parties specifically Opp party Nos.1 to 5 to give promotion to the petitioner, from the Post of ARI to Revenue Inspector (R.I) that into petitioner already submitted his property statement (U/Annexure-6) within the extended period of time as extended by the GA & PG Department Letter No.31/SE the consideration taking // 2 // Dated 09.01.2024 (i.e./Annexure-5) though the name of petitioner was zone of consideration for promotion (U/Annexure-4), but due to non-submission of property statement his name not considered for promotion. ii) Why direction shall not be given to Opp. Party No.1 to 5 to give promotion taking into the marks secured in Departmental Examination and CCRs as per the Final Gradation list published of ARIs working under Nayagarh District (U/Annexure-2) from the date his junior (i.e. Opp. Party No.6) who promoted by the promotion committee meeting held on held on 11.08.2023. iii) Why direction shall not be given to the Opp. Party Nos.1 to 5 to give promotion from the date junior to the petitioner promoted and further extended all service and consequential benefits thereof in his favour, to which he is eligible and entitled. If the Opp. Parties fail to show any cause or show any insufficient cause, the aforesaid Rule be made absolute by issuing an appropriate writ/writs, And pass any other order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 4. The factual background of the present case is that the Petitioner is working as ARI under Ranapur Tahsil in the district of Nayagarh, who was initially appointed as such on 20.02.2014 on being duly selected by following a regular recruitment process. Thereafter, the Petitioner appeared in the departmental examination and accordingly, the Petitioner was declared successful in he said departmental examination. Further, on the basis of the performance in the departmental training, a gradation list was prepared on 31.12.2022 and in the said gradation list, the name of the Petitioner finds place at Sl. No.9, whereas Opposite Party No.6 placed under Sl.No.10. A copy of the final Gradation list of ARIs has also been filed as Annexure-2. // 3 // 5. It is further stated in the Writ Petition that the Petitioner’s next promotion is Revenue Inspector (R.I.). Under Rule-11 of the Orissa District Revenue Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1982 . The said Rule provides as follows: “11. Promotion to the cadre of Revenue Inspectors shall be made, on the basis of merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority, from among the Amins and Collection Mohairs of the District who, on the first day of January of the year in which the Committee meets- a) such and b) as may be prescribed from time to time; have completed at least five years of service as have passed such Departmental examination tests Provided that the percentage of promotion of the Amins and Collection Moharirs to the rank of Revenue Inspector shall as nearly as possible, be proportionate to the total strength of such employees continuing on regular basis in the district.” 6. By referring to the aforesaid Rule, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended before this Court that the Petitioner is eligible to be promoted to the next higher post of Revenue Inspector as he has completed five years of service and he also passed the departmental examination. However, the authorities ignoring the seniority and just and fair claim, the Opposite Parties have given promotion to the junior to the next higher post of Revenue Inspector. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted before this Court that the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector was not considered as because Annual Property Statement of the Petitioner was not uploaded in the website. Therefore, in absence of the Annual Property Statement, the case of the Petitioner was not considered by // 4 // the DPC while considering the case of the Petitioner. Accordingly, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that it is not the case that the case of the Petitioner for promotion have been rejected by the Opposite Parties, however, the same has been deferred for the time being for want of Annual Property Statement. Learned Additional Government Advocate further contended that there is a prescribed Rule for providing Annual Property Statement of the employees of the Government. It is also contended that the Annual Property Statement of the employees are to be uploaded in the website on or before 31st January every year. Since the Petitioner has not uploaded the Annual Property Statement in the website, his case has not been considered till the same is uploaded as per the established practice on HRMS portal of the Government. Accordingly, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the present Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. 8. However as per letter No.31/SE dated 09.01.2024 the Addl. Secretary to Govt. GA & PG (SE) Dept. (U/Annexure-5) communicated to all Depts. of Govt. for extension of dead line for submission of property statement for the period 01.01.2022 to 31.12.2022 extended up to 10th February, 2024. Accordingly, Petitioner submitted his property statement on 06.01.2024 (U/Annexure-6). 9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on a careful consideration of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the pleadings of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that right to be considered for promotion to the next higher rank has been well // 5 // recognized under the provisions of the Constitution. In the present case, it has been alleged that such right to be considered for promotion has been infringed by the conduct of the Opposite Parties, more so, while considering the cases of juniors, the case of the Petitioner has been ignored for promotion to the next higher rank although according to the Petitioner, he is senior to the person who is junior (i.e. Opp.PartyNo.6 placed under serial No.17)promoted as per the final gradation list under Annexure-2. Therefore, this Court is required to consider such a right of the Petitioner for promotion to the next higher rank vis-à-vis the procedure formulated for uploading Annual Property Statement in the HRMS website portal of the State Government. No doubt, the Petitioner has to upload the Annual Property Statement within a specified period of time as has been stated in the G.A. & P.G. Department Notification i.e. by 31st January of every year. But here as per extended letter of G.A. & P.G. Dept. letter dated 09.01.2024, the Petitioner already submitted his property statement. However, considering the fact that the right of the Petitioner to be considered for promotion is getting affected, this Court deems it proper to consider the case for promotion. 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual position as well as law, this Court deems it proper to direct the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion in view of the property statement submitted by the Petitioner on 06.01.2024 and also G.A. & P.G. Dept. already extended the period for 2021-22 till 10.02.2024. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are directed to convene a review DPC to consider the case of promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Revenue Inspector from the date the juniors to the Petitioner are promoted subject to the fact that Petitioner is found eligible in // 6 // terms of the relevant Rules within a period of four weeks from today. 11. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 12. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 14-Mar-2024 21:20:34