The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.12046 of 2025 Rukmani Sahoo ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Debasis Panigrahi -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Ms. S.Nayak, A.S.C. 1) State Of Odisha 2) Director Of Family Welfare Odisha 3) Chief District Medical And Public Health Officer
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 06.05.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that your Lordship would be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, issue notice to the Opposite parties, to show cause as to why this writ petition shall not be allowed and if the Opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, than may allow this writ petition by directing the Opposite parties to promote the petitioner from MPHW (F) Level -II to MPHW (F) Level-I; And may pass any such order/ orders, writ/writs that will deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” Page 1 of 5. 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner joined as a Multipurpose Heath Worker(F) on 04.04.1990. While working as such a provisional gradation list was published on 18.01.2025. Such provisional gradation list was finalised in due course and a final gradation list was also published on 10.03.2025. Referring to the final gradation list under Annexure-2 learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the name of the petitioner appears on serial No.6, therefore she is entitled to get promotion to the rank of MPHW(F) Level- 1. She further submitted that although the name of the petitioner was considered and she was found suitable for promotion to the MPHW(F) Level-1, however due to non-submission of the documents in time, the case of the petitioner for promotion was not considered. In course of her argument learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had submitted an undertaking supported by affidavit that she could not submit the property statement within the month of February, 2025 due to certain unavoidable circumstances and that she is ready and willing to file such property statement once the web portal is open to accept such property statement. However, the Opposite Parties without considering the aforesaid undertaking submitted with the affidavit, published the final list of candidates and accordingly they were given appointment vide office order dated 04.04.2025 under Annexure-5 without considering the case of the petitioner for such appointment. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the petitioner has approached Page 2 of 5. this Court by filing the present writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that since the petitioner has not complied with the requirement of furnishing property statement her case has not been considered by the Opposite Parties while considering the promotion to the post in MPHW (F) Level-1. Further the State- Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in not considering the case of the petitioner and passing the office order dated 04.04.2025 under Annexure-5. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that the present writ application is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed. 6. On perusal of the writ application it appears that the case of the petitioner was although considered and her name was included in the final select list for promotion to the post of MPHW(F) Level-1, however finally she was not issued with an appointment letter as the petitioner was unable to produce the property statement. Further it is stated that as such the property statement is required to be uploaded in the HRMS Portal as the HRMS portal is open to the government employees for uploading the property statement. In the aforesaid context it is also found by this Court that the petitioner as such has filed an undertaking supported by affidavit stating that due to unavoidable circumstances she could not upload the property statement in the official web portal. However, she is ready and willing to furnish such property statement. In the aforesaid Page 3 of 5. backdrop, this Court is of the view that once the Opposite Parties found the petitioner suitable and her name was included in the final select list, they should have has given opportunity to the petitioner to submit the property statement by considering her undertaking. However without providing her an opportunity to upload such property statement, opposite parties have denied promotion to the petitioner. Such conduct of the opposite parties appears to very fast and not the proper use of authority. 7. In light of the aforesaid observation and having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful perusal of factual background of the present case, and taking note of the documents annexed to the writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the opposite parties to reconsider the case of the petitioner by providing her an opportunity to submit her property statement within a stipulated period of time. Accordingly, the present writ application is being disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.3 i.e. CDM PHO, Sambalpur by filing representation along with supporting documents within a period of two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to consider the case of the petitioner by providing her an opportunity to upload the property statement once by opening the web portal for uploading such property statement. In the event the web portal cannot be opened then the opposite parties shall accept the property statement physically and consider the Page 4 of 5. case of the petitioner by the DPC for the said purpose. It is further directed that in case the petitioner complies with all other criteria, her case shall be considered and given promotion by restoring her seniority as has been indicated in the final gradation list. Let the aforesaid exercised be concluded within three months. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 09-May-2025 12:46:30