The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.9860 of 2022 ..... Ranjan Kumar Talukdar Petitioner Mr. S.S. Parida, Advocate State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA Mr. G.N. Mishra, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 3) THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 14.10.2025 Order No.12 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.S. Parida, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-Opp. Parties and Mr. G.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3. 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 Admit the writ application, to issue rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the prayers made hereunder be not allowed, Upon showing insufficient cause/ no cause make the said Rule absolute, Issue writ/writs in the nature of i. Mandamus directing the opp. Parties to promote the petitioner in the rank of Revenue Inspector w.e.f. the date of promotion of opp. Party No.3 with all financial benefits by consequential service and declaring the promotion of opp. Party No.3 as Revenue Inspector in Malkangiri district as at Annexure-3 Page 1 of 8. dtd.2.1.2020 to be illegal unconstitutional and against the statutory provisions. ii. To quash the order dtd.4.9.2021 under Annexure 8. such other writ/writs, iii. And/or may pass order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper for the ends of justice. And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”
Legal Reasoning
4. It is contended that in the tentative gradation list of ARI published under Annexure-2, Petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 8 in the rank of Asst. Revenue Inspector in the district of Malkanagiri. Similarly, in the tentative gradation list of Amin in the district of Malkanagiri, Opp. Party No. 3 was placed at Sl. No. 1 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that promotion of ARI & Amin to the rank of Revenue Inspector is governed under the provisions of Odisha District Revenue Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983 (in short Rules). It is contended that as provided under Rule 4 of the said Rules, against the total vacancies available in the rank of Revenue Inspector, 10% of the vacancies arising in a year is required to be filled up by way of direct recruitment, 40% of the vacancies by absorption of job contract employees and 50% of the vacancies by way of promotion from the cadre of Amin & Asst. Revenue Inspector. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that by the time the DPC was held on 27.12.2019 to extend the benefit of promotion to the rank of Revenue Inspector from amongst eligible Page 2 of 8. ARI & Amin in Malkanagiri district, 5 vacancies were there in the rank of Revenue Inspector. 4.3. It is also contended that in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 11 of the aforesaid Rules, more particularly the proviso contained thereto, percentage of promotion of Amin & ARI to the rank of Revenue Inspector, shall as merely as possible, be proportionate to the total strength of such employees continuing on regular basis in the district. Rule 11 of the Rules reads as follows:- “11. Promotion to the cadre of Revenue Inspectors – 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 [Assistant Revenue Inspector] of the District who, on the first day of January of the year in which the Committee meets. (a) have completed at least five years of service as, such, and (b) have passed such Departmental examinations/tests as may be prescribed from time to time: Provided that the percentage of promotion of the Amins and [Assistant Revenue Inspector] 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.” 4.4. Placing reliance on the documents enclosed to the rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner further contended that by the time the DPC was held on 27.12.2019, out of 35 ARIs continuing in the district of Malkanagiri, 33 ARIs were continuing on regular basis. Similarly, out of the 26 Amins continuing in the district of Malkanagiri, 12 Amins were continuing on regular basis. Therefore, in terms of the provisions contained to Page 3 of 8. the proviso to Rule 11 and taking into account the continuance of 33 ARIs vis-a-vis 12 Amins, benefit of promotion as against 50% of the vacancy should have been made proportionately. 4.5. It is contended that as against the total sanctioned strength of R.I. at 50, by the time the DPC was held, 5 vacancies were there. So in terms of the provisions contained to the proviso to Rule 11, out of the said 5 vacancies, 50% of the vacancies is required to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst eligible ARIs and Amins proportionate to the ARIs and Amins continuing on regular basis. But the DPC out of the 5 vacancies, only considered the claim of Private Opp. Party No. 3, who was working as an Amin without assigning any reason and without following the provisions contained under the proviso to Rule 11. 4.6. Basing on such recommendation of the DPC, Opp. Party No. 3 got the benefit of promotion to the rank of Revenue Inspector vide order dtd.02.01.2020 under Annexure-3. It is accordingly contended that since the DPC in its proceeding dtd.27.12.2019 under Annexure-A/2 never followed the provisions contained under Rule 4 vis-a-vis the proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules, the recommendation made by the DPC in its proceeding dtd.27.12.2019 under Annexure- A/2 and consequential benefit extended in favour of Opp. Party No. 3 vide order dtd.02.01.2020 under Annexure-3 are not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submissions basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2. It is contended that since by the time the DPC was so conducted, 46 ARIs and 37 Amins were Page 4 of 8. continuing in the district of Malkanagiri, the DPC by following the provisions contained under the aforesaid Rules, recommended the claim of Opp. Party No. 3 who is an Amin, having belong to SC category and placed at Sl. No. 1 of the gradation list. Stand taken in Para 12 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- “That, in reply to the averments made in Para-15 of the Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that, there are 46 posts of ARIs and 37 posts of Amins sanctioned for Malkangiri District consisting of 21 Nos. of contractual Amin posts and the last DPCs conducted during 2018 basing on the total strength 46 posts of ARI & 37 posts of Amin and given promotion of 02 eligible ARIs & one Amin. The same procedure has been followed during the DPC held during 2019 according to the Rules.” 5.1. It is accordingly contended that since the DPC recommended the claim of Opp. Party No. 3 having found him eligible to get the benefit, no illegality or irregularity can be found with such recommendation and consequential extension of the benefit in favour of Opp. Party No. 3 vide order dtd.02.01.2020 under Annexure-3. 6. Mr. G.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3 on the other hand contended that since as against the 5 vacancies available, 50% of the posts is required to be filled up by way of promotion, but the DPC held the vacancy to be filled up by way of promotion at 1(one) and found Opp. Party No. 3 eligible to get the benefit by making the recommendation in his favour. 6.1. It is also contended that in the rank of ARI, Petitioner since was placed at Sl. No. 2 in reserve category, even if one post is made available for eligible ARI, Petitioner cannot get the benefit. It is also contended that by virtue of the order of promotion extended in Page 5 of 8. favour of Opp. Party No. 3 on 02.01.2020 under Annexure-3, Opp. Party No. 3 has already rendered service for more than 5 years in the promotional post of Revenue Inspector, and he will be seriously prejudiced, if any adverse order is passed. 7. To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner made further submissions contending inter alia that person placed at Sl. No. 1 in the rank of ARI since is facing departmental proceeding, he will not be eligible to get the benefit and Petitioner being placed at Sl. No. 2, in terms of the provisions contained to the proviso to Rule 11, Petitioner is to be recommended to get the benefit, which has been illegally denied to him by the DPC in its proceeding dtd.27.12.2019 under Annexure-A/2. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that both Petitioner and Opp. Party No. 3 while continuing as ARI and Amin respectively in the district of Malkanagir, the DPC was held on 27.12.2019 to consider the claim of such ARIs/Amins for their promotion to the rank of Revenue Inspector. It is not disputed by the Parties that such promotion is governed under the provisions contained under the aforesaid 1983 Rules. This Court after going through the aforesaid Rules, finds that 50% of the vacancies in the rank of Revenue Inspector is required to be filled up by way of promotion. As provided under the Proviso to Rule 11 of the said Rules, such vacancies in the rank of R.I. is to be filled up proportionately from amongst eligible Amins and ARIs. Page 6 of 8. 8.1. As found from the record, by the time the DPC was so held on 27.12.2019, 33 regular ARIs and 12 regular Amins were continuing in the district of Malkanagiri. Considering the vacancies available at 5 and the fact that 50% of the vacancy is required to be filled up by way of promotion, taking into account the proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules, it is the view of this Court that claim of the eligible ARIs as well as Amins should have been considered proportionately. But as found, the DPC without assigning any reasons whatsoever, made the recommendation in favour of Opp. Party No. 3 and by holding the vacancy to be filled up by way of promotion at 1 (one) out of the total vacancy at 5 (five). 8.2. This Court is of the view that the manner in which the DPC was conducted on 27.12.2019 is not in terms of the provisions contained to the proviso to Rule 11 vis-a-vis Rule 4 of the aforesaid 1983 Rules. Therefore, it is the view of this Court that recommendation made by the DPC on 27.12.2019 under Annexure-A/2 and consequential extension of benefit vide office order dtd.02.01.2020 under Annexure-3 requires a reconsideration with conduct of a review DPC of the DPC dtd.27.12.2019. 8.3. Therefore, without interfering with the order of promotion extended in favour of Opp. Party No. 3 vide order dtd.02.01.2020 under Annexure-3 for the present, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to conduct a review DPC of the DPC dtd.27.12.2019 and take a fresh decision with regard to the entitlement of eligible ARIs and Amins to get the benefit of promotion taking into account the vacancies available in the year 2019 at 5. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to complete the entire exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. Continuance of Page 7 of 8. Opp. Party No. 3 in the promotional post, shall be subject to final outcome of the DPC to be held as directed.
Decision
9. The writ petition accordingly stands 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: 17-Oct-2025 17:47:16 Page 8 of 8.