The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.14072 of 2025 Rama Chandra Rath ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Bipin Kumar Nayak State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties -versus- Represented By Adv. –
Legal Reasoning
Smt. B.K. Sahu, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 16.05.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application and issue Rule NISI to the opp. parties calling upon them to show cause as to why the order of promotion dated 11.01.2024 under Annexure-2 and 07.08.2024 under annexure-6 shall not be quashed in respect of opp. party no.6 to 8 and further why they shall not be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Section Officer, by convening a review D.P.C. Page 1 of 5. the within a stipulated period promoting petitioner to the post of Section Officer with effect from the date when his juniors were so the service and promoted and extend all consequential benefits in his favour, to which he is entitled. And on their failing to show cause or showing insufficient cause, the said Rule be made absolute; And pass such further order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper. 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk/Junior Revenue Assistant on 30.03.1998. While continuing as such, the Petitioner was promoted as Senior Clerk/Senior Revenue Assistant on 30.06.2009. But the Opposite Parity No.6 was promoted as Senior Revenue Assistant on 10.07.2009 while Opposite Party No.7 & 8 were promoted as such on 19.08.2009 and 17.08.2018 respectively. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, further contended that a final gradation of Senior Revenue Assistant was published by the office of the Opposite Party No.2 on 25.11.2022 showing the Petitioner as senior to Opposite Party No.6 to 8. Thereafter, a DPC was convened to consider the case of promotion to the post of Section Officer by the Opposite Party No.2. Finally, the DPC recommended the case of Opposite Party No.6 for promotion from Senior Revenue Assistant to the post of Section Officer vide order dated 11.01.2024 and Opposite Party No.7 & 8 vide order dated 07.08.2024. 5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that since the Petitioner is unable to submit his property statement for the year 2024, his case Page 2 of 5. has not been considered for promotion by the DPC. He further submitted that no such intimation was given to the Petitioner to submit his property statement. Therefore, the Petitioner could not furnish such details in time. However, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that prior to issue of the impugned orders of promotion, the Petitioner has submitted his property statement for the year 2024 and uploaded in the HRMS portal and the same is available with the Opposite Parties. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in the meantime the Petitioner has submitted representations before the Opposite Party No.2 ventilating his grievances, but no response has been made to the same as of now. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in not considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Section Officer as the Petitioner failed to submit his property statement in time. He further contended that although it appears from the writ petition that representations have been submitted by the Petitioner under Annexures-5 and 7, however he has no such instruction regarding the status of such representations. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the Page 3 of 5. respective parties and on a careful examination of the materials on record, further taking into consideration the documents annexed to the writ petition, this Court is of the view that although some of the juniors to the Petitioner have been given promotion to the post of Section Officer, however the case of the Petitioner has not been considered for the reason as has been given by the Opposite Parties for non- submission of property statement of the Petitioner in time. Further, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that such property statement has already been furnished in the meantime, this Court is of the view that there is no other legal hurdle in considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the next higher rank. 8. On careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, keeping in view the subsequent development that had taken place that the Petitioner had already submitted his property statement, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to convene a review DPC to consider the case of the Petitioner. In the event it is found that juniors to the Petitioner have been given promotion, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner subject to complying with his statutory requirements within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. In the event it is found that there is no other legal impediment and that the Petitioner had already submitted his property statement, then necessary action be taken to grant promotion Page 4 of 5. to the Petitioner within the aforesaid time stipulated. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition stands disposed of. Debasis ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 20-May-2025 13:03:59 Page 5 of 5.