THE HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.DASH AND THE HON'BL N'BLE MR. JUSTICE v. NARASINGH ORDER
Case Details
IN THE HIGH C CK IGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.7006 of 2024 W 1) Rabindra Sethi ..... Petitioner Represented Subhadut sented By Adv. - bhaduttaRoutray -versus- 1) High Court Of Orissa, Cut , Cuttack ..... Oppos pposite Parties 2) Registrar Civil Court, Bhad t, Bhadrak 3) Kalpataru Mohapatra 4) Mrutyunjay Panda Represente Mr. G.N. R esented By Adv. G.N. Rout, ASC CORAM: THE HON
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.DASH AND THE HON'BL N'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
Decision
ORDER 05.04.2024 Order No. 01. 1. tter This matter is i taken up through hybrid arr d arrangement mode. (virtual/physical) mode. 2. The Petitioner, w , who is working as a Senior Clerk in the in the judgeship of Bhadrak, by filing thi ing this writ petition, has invoked the jurisdic risdiction of this Court under Articles 22 226 and 227 of the Constitution of Indi f India to quash the order dated 03.10.2 03.10.2013 under Annexure-10 passed by th by the learned Page 1 of 5 District Judge, Bhadrak hadrak in rejecting the Petitioner’s represen presentation for reassignment of his pos is position in the final gradation list above th ove the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4. 3. Heard Mr. S. Ro . S. Routray, learned counsel for the Petitione etitioner and Mr. G.N. Rout, Additional itional Standing Counsel appearing for the or the Opposite Parties. 4. The Petitioner oner was appointed as Junior Clerk in the ju the judgeship of Balasore-Bhadrak by or by order dated 18th May, 2011 and he join e joined as such on 21st May, 2011. Opp Opposite Parties 3 and 4 were admittedly ap dly appointed as Junior Clerks by the se the self-same order and placed at Sl. No.9 No.9 and 14 of Annexure-1 whereas na eas name of the Petitioner figures at Sl. No Sl. No.5. In the final gradation list of st of the year 2013, the Petitioner was pla as placed at Sl. No.44 whereas Opposi pposite Party Nos.3 and 4 were at Sl. No. l. No.33 and 40 respectively. 5. The Petitioner w oner was promoted to the post of Senior C enior Clerk vide order dated 26.12.2015 .2015 in terms of the ORV Act and Rule as h as he belongs to Scheduled Caste cate te category. In course of time Opposite Party Party Nos.3 and 4 were promoted as d as Senior Clerk on 14.02.2017 and 3 and 31.08.2017 respectively. Page 2 of 5 6. While preparing paring the draft gradation list in the year 201 ar 2018, the said Opposite Party Nos. 3 os. 3 and 4 were placed at Sl. No.34 an .34 and 35. On consideration of the o the objection, the draft list was finalize inalized without alteration of the position osition of the Petitioner vis-à-vis Opposite Pa site Parties 3 and 4 inasmuch the Petitione etitioner continued to be below the said Oppos Opposite Parties 3 and 4. 7. Again on 23.05. 23.05.2020, the gradation list was prepared epared. Opposite Parties 3 and 4 raised ob ised objection regarding placement of the Pet he Petitioner and the representations mad made by the Opposite Parties 3 and 4 were were sent to the Petitioner inviting his r his response and considering the same, the the Petitioner was placed at Sl. No.32 No.32 whereas Opposite Parties 3 and 4 w d 4 were placed above him at Sl. No.24 a o.24 and 28 respectively. 7-A. Thereafter, the P , the Petitioner made representation on 28.03 .03.2023 and alleging inaction, he app approached this Court by filing WP(C) No (C) No.24031 of 2023 and by order rder dated 7.8.2023, this Court directed rected the said representation to be disp be disposed of. 7-B. Annexure-10 im 10 impugned herein was passed in consid consideration of such representation of th n of the Petitioner. Page 3 of 5 8. It is apt to note o note here that when the Petitioner and the nd the Opposite Parties 3 and 4 entere entered into service in the year 2011, the 11, the Bhadrak Judgeship was part of co rt of combined judgeship of Balasore and Bha d Bhadrak. 9. As noted the P he Petitioner was placed higher at Sl. N Sl. No.5 in the appointment order date r dated 18.5.2011 at Annexure-1 of the jud the judgeship of Balasore and Bhadrak adrak and the Opposite Parties 3 and 4 w 4 were placed below him at Sl. No.9 a No.9 and 14. The Petitioner claims that the sa the same should be the basis for fixation xation of inter se seniority between the parties parties. 10. While passing ssing the impugned order at Annexure- -10, learned District Judge, Bhadrak hadrak has clarified that in the merit list of 2 st of 2011 of the combined judgeship of hip of Balasore and Bhadrak, the Petitioner w ioner was placed at Sl. No.51 whereas O reas Opposite Parties 3 and 4 were at Sl. No. l. No.43 and 47 respectively. And, later , later applying the “Catch Up principle”, ”, they were placed above the Petitio Petitioner in the gradation list of Senior Cle ior Clerk though the Petitioner was prom promoted earlier in the year 2015, in view o iew of the ORV Act and Rule since adm admittedly he belongs to SC Category. 11. The assertion tion of the Petitioner to treat his placeme lacement in the appointment order at An at Annexure-1 claiming the same to be on on the basis of inter se merit is dehors t ehors the record. As already noted, his earlier arlier promotion to the cadre of Senior C nior Clerk was on account of ORV Act and t and Rule, since Page 4 of 5 he belongs to SC Cate Category and the same cannot confer upo pon him any right to march over the er the seniors in the feeder cadre in terms of ms of the law as settled by this Court in urt in the case of Lagnajit Ray and others thers vrs. State of Orissa and others others, 2011 (1) OLR 689 relating to “ to “Catch Up principle”. 12. Hence, on a con a conspectus of the materials on record, at t at the cost of repetition and taking in ing into account that in the original merit merit list of the combined judgeship of of Balasore and Bhadrak since the Peti e Petitioner was placed below Opposite posite Parties 3 and 4 in the order of merit merit, this Court does not find any infirm infirmity in the impugned order at Annexure exure-10 passed by the learned District istrict Judge, Bhadrak warranting interferen rference thereby unsettling the settled po tled position of inter se seniority between the en the Petitioner vis-à-vis Opposite Partie Parties 3 and 4. 13. The writ petition missed. etition being devoid of merit stands dismissed Issue urgent cert nt certified copy as per rule. (D. Dash) Judge (V.Narasingh) Judge Signature Not Verified PKS Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 10-Apr-2024 12:36:45 Page 5 of 5