The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21360 of 2021 An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Bana Bihari Mallick & others . Petitioners Mr. P.K. Panda, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & others . Opp. Parties Mr. I. Mohanty, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA _____________________________________________________ Date of hearing : 03.05.2023 | Date of Judgment : 12.05.2023 ______________________________________________________ A.K. Mohapatra, J. : 01. Heard Mr. P.K. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. I. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3.
Legal Reasoning
The Petitioners have knocked the doors of the High Court being aggrieved by order No.646 dated 13.04.2021 which was communicated vide a radio message by the Opposite Party No.5 i.e. Superintendent of Police (Signal Odisha Government) // 2 // indicating therein that the Petitioners are being deployed in different Wireless Training (W.T.) Stations/ Workshop attached to the Crimes and Criminal Tracking Networking System (CCTNS) Project in different districts of the State of Odisha. 4. The Petitioners in the present writ application were rendering their services under Opposite Party No.5 as Constable (Communication). While working as such on being duly selected they were promoted to the rank of ASI (Communication) in Police Signals Establishment by the CSB held on 18.03.2001 and pursuant to the resolution which was communicated by the Opposite Party No.3. It is pertinent to mention here that the service condition of the Petitioners are governed by Odisha Police Signals service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Order, 2021. Under the aforesaid order 2021, the Petitioners are to render service in three different categories under Opposite Party No.5 which has been defined under Rule 3(c) of the aforesaid order. However, the Opposite Party No.5 violating the said order has issued the impugned order dated 13.04.2021 under Annexure-2 thereby deploying the petitioners in different Wireless Training Stations/ Workshop attached to CCTNS Project in different districts of Odisha. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order // 3 // Annexure-2 is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of
Decision
law. It has also been stated that the impugned order is also not in consonance with the order under Annexure-3 i.e. an order passed by the CSB promoting the Petitioners to the rank of ASI (Communication) in the signals establishment of Odisha Police. 5. The Opposite Parties have filed a counter affidavit wherein they have stated that the Petitioners having accepted the promotional order and after joining in their respective posts without any kind of objection are now estopped to challenge the very same promotional order under which they have availed the benefit of promotion. Furthermore, it has also been contended on behalf of the Opposite Parties that the promotional order cannot be bifurcated i.e. while implementing a part the order, the other part of the order which is not suitable to the Petitioners be obliterated and deleted altogether. In the said counter affidavit it has also been stated that the post of ASI (Communication) in various CCTNS Project are not under different establishment and as such placing their services in CCTNS project, the Opposite Parties have not imposed any additional burden upon the Petitioners. On completion of VHF and computer familiarization course of training, and on being found suitable for promotion to the rank of ASI (Communication) as per the prevailing rules, the // 4 // Petitioners have been given promotion and accordingly they were posted in different CCTNS Projects under different police districts of the State of Odisha. Further, it has been stated that in course of such training the Petitioners have been imparted training exclusively with regard to the CCTNS work. 6. In the counter affidavit, it has also been stated that the Petitioners are being paid 15 % special incentives as a technical incentives for specialized duty they are required to perform. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties also contended that the CCTNS Projects has been started in the State of Odisha more than a decade ago. As a part of National E-Governance Plan of Government of India with an aim to create a Comprehensive Integrated System for enhancing efficiency and effectiveness of policing through adoption of the principle of E-Governance and for creation of Nationwide Network Infrastructure for evolution of IT enabled State of the Art Tracking System around Investigation of Crime and Detection of the Criminals. He further contended that under the CCTNS Project, 784 Locations and Police Stations/ Police Control Rooms are being provided with necessary computer hardware and Network Connectivity by the Police System Integrator. Since, it is a part of a nationwide plan to integrate the work of Police Investigation and detection of // 5 // Criminals with a view to enhance security and improve service to the citizens, the Odisha Police has adopted the Project which is only a part of E-Governance Plan of Government of India and the same is being implemented by the Odisha Police. 7. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel further contended that the State Police Headquarter vide office order dated 30.01.2014 had earlier selected and attached 100 ASIs (Communication) to CCTNS Project with effect from the year 2014. Additionally, he also submitted that due to want of suitable replacement these ASIs could not be transferred from those places. In the event, they are transferred without making any suitable arrangement to substitute another officer in their place, then the entire CCTNS platform would get affected. 8. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on the other hand submitted that promotion in service is a matter of course and every employee has a right to be considered for such promotion. However, while giving such promotion the employer cannot impose any such condition which would affect the interest of the employee adversely and moreover, when such condition imposed is not authorized under the relevant rules. He further contended that the Petitioners accepted the promotional order under compulsion as they had no other // 6 // alternative than to accept the promotion. It was also contended by Mr. Panda that with regard to the condition imposed under the order promoting the Petitioner, the same can always be questioned on the ground that imposition of such conditions are contrary to the orders/ rules/ guidelines. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioners are all matriculates and most of them are lady police officers, therefore, Attaching them to CCTNS Project under different district police headquarters is as good as putting them under the control of the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and in the process making the petitioners answerable to the Superintendents of Police of such concerned districts. Therefore, it was submitted that the Petitioners are now answerable to two different authorities which will not only put them into inconvenience, moreover, the same will affect the service career of the petitioners. 10. He further raised the ground of lack of technical expertise to attend multiple police stations at a time. Therefore, it was argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that by giving conditional promotion to the petitioners in their parent establishments has not only caused prejudice to the petitioner, the same is also contrary to the rules regulating the service condition // 7 // of the Petitioners. In reply to the training given to the Petitioner both in practical and theory in VHF and computer familiarization course as stated by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-Opposite Parties, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would be evident from the syllabus under Annexure-4 to the rejoinder affidavit that the Petitioners are required to appear and qualify in a higher examination like Computer Engineering Theory which the Petitioners might not be able to clear with their basic knowledge in computer application. 11. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner, further contended that the Petitioners were given training for five days only which is in the nature of a crash course and to acquire basic knowledge of CCTNS Project, therefore, such training is not adequate to handle the CCTNS Projects in the State of Odisha effectively. The sum and substance of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the Petitioner is that to handle the CCTNS work, the Petitioners are required to have a set of specific skills as per the rules and the syllabus prescribed for the purpose. However, hastily, the Petitioners have been given promotion and posted in CCTNS Project for which they are not properly equipped and they have not been properly trained for the said purpose. Therefore, learned counsel for the Petitioner expressed // 8 // his apprehension that eventually the petitioners may not be able to handle the nature of work that is required to be performed under the CCTNS Project and accordingly the same is likely to affect their service career adversely. 12. With regard to payment of 15 per cent special incentive as technical incentive for performance of the specialized job as submitted by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the same is not correct and no such special incentive is being paid to the petitioners for discharging the duties under the CCTNS Project. 13. The current situation, so far the Petitioners are concerned, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is like without giving training to the Petitioners how to swim, the Opposite Parties have pushed the Petitioners into a river. Thereby the Opposite Parties have put the entire service career of the Petitioner in danger. Therefore, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the conditional promotion order is bad in law and contrary to the rules and, moreover, the same will adversely affect the service career of the Petitioners including their future promotional prospects. In the said context, it was also argued that the nature of work under the CCTNS Project as well as the design of the software which is a role based software is based on the role // 9 // performed by SHO (Station House Officer) as such the staffs/ officers of the Signal Establishment having no specific role in the Investigation of Crime and Detection of Criminals are not the right kind of persons to be manned in the CCTNS Project which is a computer technology based project requiring a higher degree of skill. He further submitted that the posting of the Petitioner under the CCTNS Project would not only put the service career of the Petitioners in jeopardy, the same is also likely to affect the entire functioning of the CCTNS network in the State of Odisha which is definitely not in the larger public interest. 14. Additionally, it was also contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that it is not correct that vide order dated 30.01.2014 all ASIs (Communication) were deployed to perform CCTNS work under various police districts. The order dated 30.01.2014 was challenged by some ASIs (Communication) by filing O.A. No.632 of 2019 before the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal. Thereafter, the State Government has withdrawn all the ASIs due to availability of sufficient trained Police personnel to maintain the CCTNS Project. He further submitted that all the ASIs referred to in order dated 30.01.2014 are all direct recruits, therefore, they cannot be equated with the Petitioners who are promotees and were initially appointed as // 10 // Constables having matriculation as their qualification. He also submitted that in the meantime 57 constables (communication) have been promoted to the post of ASIs vide order No.959 dated 30.06.2022, but none of them have been attached to the CCTNS Project unlike the Petitioners. 15. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the Parties and upon a careful consideration of the pleadings filed before this Court by the counsels representing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that upon a careful examination of the entire background facts, this Court observed that there exists certain practical difficulties which are required to be resolved by the Odisha Police. This is more so because selection of right candidates would have a direct bearing on the effective functioning of CCTNS network in the State of Odisha. In the event, trained and qualified persons are not deployed in the CCTNS project there is every possibility that the E-Governance plan of Government of India so far the Police Administration is concerned is not likely to achieve its desired objective and furthermore, in such eventuality the huge amount of public money spent in such project is likely to be wasted. Therefore, this Court feels that the highest authority in the Police Administration in the State of Odisha are required to look into the matter with all // 11 // seriousness and try to resolve the impending issues and the problems/difficulties that has been raised by the petitioners. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application by directing the petitioners to file a petition before the Director General of Police-Opposite Party No.2 narrating the issues and difficulties faced by them within a period of three weeks from today. In the event, such a petition is filed before the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.2 in consultation with other opposite parties shall do well to consider the grievance of the Petitioners keeping in view the larger public interest and the objective of the CCTNS Project and shall take a decision in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of filing of the Petition by the Petitioners. Moreover, it is also directed that the Opposite Parties shall also do well to ensure that the petitioners get 15 per cent special incentive as technical incentive as has been promised to them and mentioned in para-4(o) of the Counter affidavit. 16. The writ petition stands disposed of with the observations made hereinabove, however, there shall be no order as to cost. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 12th of May, 2023/ Anil. ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Date: 2023.05.12 18:12:44 +05'30'