The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.15228 of 2024 Sarada Prasan Das ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Subhadutta Routray -versus- Government of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. Samresh Jena, ASC Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, Advocate for O.P Nos.5 & 6. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 02.07.2025 08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel
Legal Reasoning
for the State-Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 and learned counsel for
Decision
the Opposite Parties No.5 & 6. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to show cause as to why the impugned order dated 05.06.2024 under Annexure-17 shall not be quashed and in the event the Opposite Parties failed to show any cause, then the impugned order dated 05.06.2024 issued by the Opposite Party No.2 under Page 1 of 7. Annexure-17 be quashed. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of writ of mandamus directing to the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the rank of Junior Clerk (Group-C) as per the Odisha District Police Ministerial Officers Method of Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1995 and in terms of the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by this Court in I.A. No.17742 of 2023, arising out of W.P.(C) No.31446 of 2023, and to extent all service and financial benefits in favour of the Petitioner within a reasonable period of time. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that on 24.05.2014 the Petitioner was promoted to the Group-C post. Thereafter, he was reverted back to his former post vide order dated 21.12.2020. Such order of reversion was challenged before this Court which was initially stayed vide order dated 30.12.2020. On 21.07.2022, the writ petition preferred by the Petitioner was dismissed. Again the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.11170 of 2023 and on 12.04.2023, an interim order was passed. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that W.P.(C) No.31446 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No.11170 of 2023 filed by the Petitioner as well as Opposite Party No.5 and 6. This Court, vide order dated 03.10.2023, disposed of the said two writ petitions with a direction to the Opposite Parties to fill up the 10% quota by holding DPC and to take into consideration all eligible employees in the Group-D rank. Page 2 of 7. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that since a dispute arose of with regard to the applicability of the rules, i.e. as to whether the 1995 Rules shall apply or the 2021 Rules, an I.A. was preferred in the above noted two disposed of writ petitions. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.02.2024 clarified the position that, so far the Petitioners are concerned, the rules of the year 1995 shall apply. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner first drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 03.10.2023 under Annexure-15 as well as the order dated 09.02.2024 in I.A. No.1774 of 2023 under Annexure-16, submitted that there is no doubt with regard to applicability of the Rules to the case of the Petitioner. Further, specifically referring to the order dated 09.02.2024 under Annexure-16, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in paragraph-13 of the order, a coordinate Bench of this Court has clearly mentioned that the case of the Petitioner shall be considered against 10% quota by holding a fresh DPC as per the Rules, 1995 and such consideration under 1995 Rules shall be confined to the Petitioner in other writ petition which includes the present Petitioner as well as Opposite Parties No.5 & 6. 8. While this was the position, the Petitioner approached the Director General of Police, Odisha for consideration of his case for promotion against 10% quota. However, his prayer having been rejected vide order dated 05.06.2024 under Annexure-17 by testing the eligibility of the Petitioner by Page 3 of 7. applying the Rules, 2021, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this stage, contended that the entire approach of the Opposite Party No.2 in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner vide impugned order 05.06.2024 under Annexure-17 is erroneous and not in conformity with the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court under Annexure-16. He further submitted that the coordinate Bench had clarified the position by mentioning that the case of the Petitioner and Opposite Parties No.5 and 6 shall be considered in terms of the 1995 Rules. Despite such clear order, the Opposite Party No.2 has committed a gross illegality by rejecting the claim of the Petitioner by applying the rules of the year 2021. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties No.5 & 6 also supported the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner with regard to applicability of rules. He further submitted that there exists no doubt with regard to applicability of 1995 Rules to the case of the Opposite PartiesNo.5 and 6. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties No.5 & 6 submitted that the State-Opposite Parries be directed to consider the case of the Opposite Parties No.5 & 6 by taking into consideration the order passed by the coordinate Bench, in terms of the Rules, 1995 against the 10% quota. 11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, referring to the counter affidavit, submitted that due to litigation, the Page 4 of 7. special DPC was held on 26.11.2020. In the meantime, in exercise the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in supersession of the Odisha District Police Ministerial Officers (Method of Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1995, the Odisha District Police Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) working under the District Police Offices Rules, 2021 came into force w.e.f. 29.10.2021. Keeping aside 10% of the posts of Junior Clerk of DPO Cadre as per Rules, 2021, nomination has been called for from eligible Group-D employees for the DPC, 2023 for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk (Group-C). The major difference between the old Rules, 1995 amended by Recruitment Rule, 2012 and the new Rules, 2021 is educational qualification i.e. HSC examination or equivalent examination as per Rules, 1995 amended by Recruitment Rule, 2012 whereas 10+2 or equivalent qualification as per Rules, 2021. On such grounds, learned counsel for the State contended that the Opposite Party No.2 has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order dated 05.06.2024 under Annexure-17. Therefore, it was prayed that the writ petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same be dismissed. 12. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the submissions made by the respective counsels, this Court observes that the dispute involved in the present writ petition was earlier before a coordinate Bench Page 5 of 7. of this Court. Learned coordinate Bench after deciding the issue had disposed of the earlier writ petition vide order dated 03.10.2023 under Annexure-15. Since a dispute arose with regard to the applicability of the appropriate rules, an interlocutory application was filed before a coordinate Bench of this Court bearing I.A. No.17742 of 2023. The learned coordinate Bench, vide a detailed order dated 09.02.2024, has set the dispute at rest with regard to applicability of the rules and has categorically held that the case of the Petitioners in the earlier writ petition, which includes the preset Petitioner as well as the Opposite Parties No.5 and 6, are to be considered in terms of the 1995 Rules. Such order dated 09.02.2024 having attained finality, this Court is bound by such order. Moreover, in the event the Opposite Parties are not satisfied with the decision of the learned coordinate Bench, they could preferred an appeal. As such, this Court observes that the impugned order dated 05.06.2024 under Annexure-17 has been passed by the Opposite Party No.2 in gross violation of the order dated 09.02.2024 under Annexure-16 to the writ petition. 13. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the impugned order dated 05.06.2024 under Annexure-17 is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the issue afresh, keeping in view the order dated 03.10.2023 under Annexure-15, as well as order dated 09.02.2024 under Annexure-16 to the writ petition. The Opposite Party No.2 shall Page 6 of 7. consider the case of both the Petitioner as well as Opposite Party No.5 and 6 in terms of the aforesaid orders and take a final decision within eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order by the parties. Any final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.2 be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such decision. 14. 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: 03-Jul-2025 19:00:34 Page 7 of 7.