The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 10538 of 2022 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. &&&&&& Prabhakar Nayak &. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. &. Opposite Parties For Petitioners : Mr. N. Rath, Advocate For Opp. Parties :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. M.R. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate PRESENT: THE HON9BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 17.10.2025 & Date of Judgment: 17.10.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. N. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. // 2 // 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the rejection of the Petitioner9s claim for consideration of his claim to get the benefit of promotion to ORS (Group-B) as against the recruitment year 2011. Claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide office order dt.22.03.2022 under Annexure-7 by Opp. Party No. 2. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner on being found eligible to get the benefit of promotion to ORS (Group-B) as against the recruitment year 2011, his name though was recommended vide Annexure-4 dtd.17.09.2012, but in the proceeding of the DPC held on 04.02.2013 under Annexure-5, his name was not considered and accordingly he was deprived from getting the benefit of promotion to ORS (Group-B) as against the recruitment year 2011. 4.1. It is also fairly contended that such recommended candidates basing on the DPC dtd.04.02.2013 got the benefit of promotion to the rank of ORS (Group-B) in the year 2013. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner9s name was duly recommended by his authority i.e. Deputy Director, Range Office, Berhampur vide letter dtd.17.09.2012 under Annexur-4 so obtained under RTI, non-consideration of his claim to Page 2 of 10 // 3 // get the benefit of the DPC held on 04.02.2013 under Annexure-5 is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.3. It is also contended that Petitioner when was deprived to get the benefit of promotion on the face of such recommendation, he approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2770 of 2016. The said Original Application was subsequently transferred to this Court in W.P.C.(OA) No. 2770 of 2016 and this Court vide order dtd.12.11.2021 under Annexure-6 directed Opp. Party No. 2 to consider the Petitioner9s claim. However, without proper appreciation of the Petitioner9s claim and the recommendation available under Annexure-4, name of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that the recommendation made by the original authority i.e. Deputy Director, Range Office, Berhampur on 17.09.2012 was never received in the office of Opp. Party No. 2 and accordingly Petitioner9s name was not considered by the DPC held on 04.02.2013. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which Petitioner9s claim has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 3. It is contended that the recommendation made by Page 3 of 10 // 4 // the Deputy Director, Range Office, Berhampur on 17.09.2012 was never received in the office of Opp. Party No. 2 or 3 and accordingly Petitioner9s claim was not considered by the DPC held on 04.02.2013. 5.1. It is further contended that even though Petitioner was deprived to get the benefit of promotion in terms of the DPC recommendation dtd.04.02.2013, but for the first time Petitioner moved the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2770 of 2016. Even though such an Original Application was filed in the year 2016, but the same was only
Decision
disposed of by this Court vide order dtd.12.11.2021 under Annexure-6 directing the authority concerned to consider the Petitioner9s claim. 5.2. Learned AGA contended that since basing on the recommendation made by the DPC on 04.02.2013, the recommended candidates got the benefit of promotion to ORS (Group-B) in the year 2013 and subsequently, they have got promotion in different rank and Petitioner9s recommendation was never received by the authority, Petitioner9s claim on being considered as per the earlier order passed by this Court has been rightly rejected. Reliance was placed to a decision of the Apex Court reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152 (P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu). Hon9ble Apex Court in the said Judgment has held as follows:- Page 4 of 10 // 5 // <A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner’s petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant’s petition as well as the appeal.= 5.3. It is also contended that since in the meantime more than 12 years have passed from the date of extension of benefit of promotion to the recommended candidates of the DPC dtd.04.02.2013, any benefit given to the Petitioner will unsettle the settled position of seniority in different rank starting from ORS (Group-B). 5.4. In support of the aforesaid submission reliance was placed to the following decisions: (i) (2010) 12 SCC 471 (Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors. Vs. State of Odisha & Ors.) (ii) Civil Appeal No. 8617 of 2013 (V. Vincent Velankanni Vs. the Union of India & Ors.) Page 5 of 10 // 6 // 5.5. Hon9ble Apex Court in Para 30 of the Judgment in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra has held as follows:- <30. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R. Mudgal, this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains to 4 years in existence unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation. for 3 5.6. Similarly, Hon9ble Apex Court in Para 46 to 48 & 50 of the Judgment in the case of V. Vincent Velankanni has held as follows:- <46. In R.S. Makashi v. I.M. Menon37, this Court observed as follows:4 <33. &. We must administer justice in accordance with law and principles of equity, justice and good conscience. It would be unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights which have accrued to them. Each person ought to be entitled to sit back and consider that his appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be set aside after the lapse of a number of years. &.= 47. In K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh38, this Court observed in the following terms:4 <2. & A government servant who is appointed to any post ordinarily should at least after a period of 3 or 4 years of his appointment be allowed to attend to the duties attached to his post peacefully and without any sense of insecurity.= 48. In B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab39, this Court held that the seniority list should not be reopened after a lapse of reasonable period as it would disturb the settled position which is unjustifiable. The relevant extract is as follows:4 Page 6 of 10 // 7 // <7. & It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable&.= xxx xxx xxx 50. To alter a seniority list after such a long period would be totally unjust to the multitudes of employees who could get caught in the labyrinth of uncertainty for no fault of theirs and may suffer loss of their seniority rights retrospectively. 5.7. Making all these submissions learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that the ground on which Petitioner9s claim has been rejected, requires no interference of this Court. 6. To the submission made by the learned AGA, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner by filing O.A. No. 2770 of 2016, prayed for consideration of his claim, which is within a period of 4 years from the date of recommendation of the DPC dtd.04.02.2013, in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7537-7541 of 2009), Petitioner9s claim is required to be considered. Hon9ble Apex Court in Para 29 of the said Judgment has held as follows:- <Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any Page 7 of 10 // 8 // challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R. Mudgal (supra), this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation.= 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that as against the recruitment year 2011, Petitioner9s name though was recommended by his original authority on 17.09.2012 under Annexure-4, but it is not disputed by either of the Parties that such recommendation was never received in the office of Opp. Party Nos. 2 or 3. 7.1. It is also not disputed that basing on the recommendation received in the office of Opp. Party Nos. 2 or 3, the DPC vide its meeting dtd.04.02.2013 recommended the eligible candidates to get the benefit of promotion as against the recruitment year 2011 and such recommendation was acted upon by the Govt. with issuance of the order of promotion in the year 2013 itself. 7.2. Even though Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2770 of 2016, but no interim order was passed by the Tribunal Page 8 of 10 // 9 // protecting the interest of the Petitioner. The said Original Application on being transferred was disposed of by this Court vide order dtd.12.11.2021 only with a direction to consider the Petitioner9s claim. As found on consideration of the said claim, Petitioner9s claim was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.22.03.2022 under Annexure-7. 7.3. Since Petitioner is making a claim in respect of the promotion extended in the year 2013 basing on the recommendation made by the DPC in its proceeding dtd.04.02.2013 and there is no document available in the case record that the recommendation made under Annexure-4 was received by the office of Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3 prior to holding of the DPC on 03.02.2012, it is the view of this Court that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3 in not considering the claim of the Petitioner. Not only that even though claim of the Petitioner was not considered in the DPC dtd.03.02.2013, but Petitioner for the first time approached the Tribunal by filing an Original Application in the last part of 2016 and Petitioner is not protected by any interim order all through. 7.4. Not only that since in the meantime more than 13 years have passed, placing reliance on the decision in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy and other decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Page 9 of 10 // 10 // V. Vincent Velankanni as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that any benefit extended in favour of the Petitioner, will unsettle the settled position of seniority in different ranks starting from ORS (Group-B). In that view of the matter, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned rejection. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same and dismiss the writ petition. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 17th October, 2025/Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 27-Oct-2025 10:26:10 Page 10 of 10