The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.14062 of 2025 Ketaki Giri and others ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. – Mr. Laxmikanta Mohanty State of Orissa and others ..... Opposite Parties -versus- Represented By Adv. –
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Samresh Jena, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 15.05.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners 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 Petitioners with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the opp. Parties calling upon them to file show cause as to why: (i) A direction shall not be issued to grant promotion to the petitioners to the post of MPHW (Female) Level-I by conveying review DPC by the opp. Party no.3 taking into consideration the position of the petitioners in the gradation list dated 22.01.2025 under Page 1 of 5. and taking into Annexure-2 consideration the property statement of the petitioners forwarded by the concerned C.H.C. under Annexure-4 series with effect from 08.04.2025 with all consequential benefits. (ii) And after hearing to the parties be pleased to direct the opp. Parties especially opp. Party no.3 to grant promotion the post of MPHW their (Female) Level-I placement in the gradation list dated 22.1.2025 under Annexure-2 w.e.f. 08.04.2025 with all service and financial benefits within a date to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court. per as (iii) And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners were appointed as MPHW (Female) on regular basis in the year 1989/1990. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that a provisional gradation list of MPHW (Female) was published by the office of the Opposite Party No.3 on 22.01.2025. Thereafter, a DPC was convened to consider the case of promotion to the post of MPHW (Female) Level-I by the Opposite Party No.3. Finally, the DPC recommended the case of promotion from MPHW (Female) Level-II to the post of MPHW (Female) Level-I vide order dated 08.04.2025. 5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that since the Petitioners are unable to submit their property statement for the year 2024, their cases have not been considered for promotion by the Page 2 of 5. DPC. He further submitted that no such intimation was given to the Petitioners to submit their property statement. Therefore, the Petitioners could not furnish such details in time. However, learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that in the meantime the Petitioners have submitted their property statement for the year 2024 and the same is available with the Opposite Parties. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in the meantime the Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, Mayurbhanj, Opposite Party No.3 has sought for permission from the Government to hold 2nd phase of DPC in respect of MPHW (Female) from Level-II to Level-I vide his letter dated 25.04.2025 under Annexure-6 to the writ petition. However, no instruction has been given to the Opposite Party No.3 to go ahead 2nd phase of DPC. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioners have 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 Petitioners for promotion to the post of MPHW (Female) Level-I as the Petitioners failed to submit their property statement in time. He further contended that although it appears from the writ petition that permission has been sought for from the Government to hold the 2nd phase DPC vide letter dated 25.04.2025 under Annexure-6 to the writ petition, however he has no such instruction in the matter. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the Page 3 of 5. same should be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the 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 Petitioners have been given promotion to MPHW (Female) Level-I post, however the case of the Petitioners has not been considered for the reason as has been given by the Opposite Parties for non submission of property statement of the Petitioners in time. Further, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners 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 Petitioners 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 Petitioners had already submitted their property statement, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.3 to convene a review DPC to consider the case of the Petitioners. In the event it is found that juniors to the Petitioners have been given promotion, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioners subject to complying with their statutory requirements within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. In the Page 4 of 5. event it is found that there is no other legal impediment and that the Petitioners had already submitted their property statement, then necessary action be taken to grant promotion to the Petitioners 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: 19-May-2025 18:13:49 Page 5 of 5.