The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15877 of 2024 An application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Subhendu Bhuyan & Ors. ..... Petitioners Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. D.K. Sahoo, A.G.A. for the State-O.Ps. Mr. Swoyam Prabhu Jena, Adv. for O.P. Nos.13, 23, 24 & 25 Mr. Manas Pati, Adv. for O.P. Nos.8 to 12, 15 to 22, 27, 28 & 31 CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA _____________________________________________________ Date of Hearing : 02.04.2025 | Date of Judgment: 02.04.2025 ______________________________________________________ A.K. Mohapatra, J. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties and learned counsels appearing for their respective Page 1 of 16 private-opposite parties. Perused the pleadings of the respective parties as well as the documents annexed to such pleadings. 2. By filing the present writ application the Petitioners have called into question the conduct of the Opposite Parties in issuing order dated 28.06.2024 under Annexure-1 and order dated 29.06.2024 under Annexure-2 series thereby giving promotion to the private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 from the post of Forest Guards to the post of Foresters without providing any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners and the Petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the orders under Annexures-1 and 2 series by declaring the same to be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the rules and the settled principles of law as has been established by various judicial pronouncements. Further, the Petitioners have prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to allow the Petitioners to continue in their present posts along with retrospective service and consequential benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that the Petitioners were initially appointed as Forest Guards on 19.08.2009. While working as such, the Petitioners Page 2 of 16 were given promotions to the post of Foresters vide order dated 01.01.2024 under Annexure-3 to the writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset, referring to the order under Annexure-3, contended that pursuant to the recommendation of the DPC in its meeting held on 22.12.2023 and without prejudice to the claims of the seniors to the Petitioners, the Petitioners were given promotion from the post of Forest Guards to the rank of Foresters in the Level-7 of the Pay Matrix under ORSP Rules, 2017 with effect from the date of their joining in the promotional post. 4. While the matter stood thus, the private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.02 of 2024 challenging the order of promotion of the Petitioners dated 01.01.2024 under Annexure-2 to the previous writ application. The Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 filed the previous writ application challenging the order of promotion of the present Petitioners on the ground that the juniors to the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 have been given promotion to the rank of Foresters under Annexure-3 to the writ application. On perusal of a copy of the previous writ Page 3 of 16 application it appears that the present petitioners were arrayed as Opposite Party Nos.8 to 22 in the previous writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that the previous writ application preferred by the Private- Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 was disposed of vide order dated 29.01.2024. He further contended that the previous writ application was disposed of at the stage of admission without even issuing any notice to the Private-Opposite Parties to the said writ application. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that while disposing of the said writ application this Court, in para-6 of the order dated 29.01.2024, has given the following direction:- “Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties
Legal Reasoning
and on a careful consideration of the background facts as well as materials on record and further keeping in view that the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioners that while considering his case the Opposite Parties have not taken into consideration the order passed in Manmath Kumar Samal’s case (supra), this Court without expressing any opinion merits of the matter deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing Page 4 of 16 the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the case of the Petitioner afresh in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal as referred to hereinabove and accordingly dispose of the grievance of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order. It is further clarified that at the time considering the cases of the Petitioners the Opposite Parties shall first determine as to whether the law laid down in Manmath Kumar Samal’s case is applicable to the facts of the Petitioners’ case or not, thereafter, the Opposite Parties shall proceed to pass necessary orders in the cases of the Petitioners. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.3 be communicated to the Petitioners within two weeks from the date of taking such a decision.” 6. Referring to the direction contained in para-6 of the order dated 29.01.2024, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that this Court had directed the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioners in the previous writ application (who are Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 in the present writ application) in terms of order passed in Manmath Kumar Samal & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (O.A. No.701 of 2018 disposed of on 16.11.2018) by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, by passing a speaking and reasoned Page 5 of 16 order within a period of two months from the date of communication of a copy of that order. He further contended that this Court had further clarified that at the time of considering the case of Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32, the State-Opposite Parties shall first determine as to whether the law laid down in Manmath Kumar Samal’s case is applicable to the facts of the Petitioners’ case or not. In the event it is found that the ratio laid down in Manmath Kumar Samal’s case is applicable to the case of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32, it was directed that necessary consequential orders be passed in the case of the Petitioners. 7.
Legal Reasoning
The main plank of argument of Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the Petitioners in the present case, is that the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32, being aggrieved by the order of promotion dated 01.01.2024 under Annexure-3 whereunder the Petitioners were promoted to the post of Forester from the post of Forest Guards, approached this Court in the previous writ application. He further contended that although the Petitioners were the Private-Opposite Parties in the previous writ application, however, no notice was issued to them and that the order dated 29.01.2024 was passed behind Page 6 of 16 their backs without providing any opportunity of hearing to them. He also contended that after the matter was remanded back to the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, Angul Circle, the Opposite Party No.3, the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, Angul Circle considered the case of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 and promoted the Private- Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 to the post of Forester. He further contended that at the same time the Petitioners, who were earlier promoted to the post of Forester, were reverted back to the post of Forest Guards. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further emphatically argued that while passing such order of reversion, no opportunity of hearing whatsoever was provided to the Petitioners by the Opposite Party No.3. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the order of reversion of the present Petitioners as well as the order giving promotion to the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He further contended that the present petitioners are seriously prejudiced by the order of reversion as well as the order granting promotion to the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners Page 7 of 16 contended that the impugned order granting promotion to the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 dated 28.06.2024 and 29.06.2024 under Annexures-1 and 2 series respectively are highly illegal, arbitrary and the same are in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and as such the same are unsustainable in law. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioners prayed for quashing of the orders under Annexures- 1 and 2 series to the writ application. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 on the other hand referred to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Opposite Party Nos.13, 23, 24 & 25. Although notices were issued to other Private-Opposite Parties, however, they have preferred not to file any counter affidavit. However, since the issue involved in the present writ application is similar with respect to the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Opposite Party Nos.13, 23, 24 & 25 has been taken into consideration while considering the stand of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32. Moreover, this Court observes that all the Private- Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 are sailing in a same boat, therefore, their ground has to be same. Otherwise also, the Page 8 of 16 counter affidavit filed by some of the Opposite Parties can be considered as an affidavit in the representative capacity on behalf of all Private-Opposite Parties. 9. Learned counsel for the Private-Opposite Party Nos.13, 23, 24 & 25 tried to justify the conduct of the Opposite Party No.3 by referring to the order passed by this Court in the previous writ application bearing W.P.(C) No.2 of 2024. He also tried to justify the promotion of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 by referring to the order passed by the learned O.A.T. in O.A. No.701 of 2018 (in the matter of Manmath Kumar Samal & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.). Learned counsel for the Private-Opposite Party Nos.13, 23, 24 & 25 emphatically argued that the Private-Opposite Parties are entitled to be promoted by applying the law laid down in Manmath Kumar Samal’s case and as such the Opposite Party No.3 has not committed any illegality in the matter. Further, referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the Private-Opposite Party Nos.13, 23, 24 & 25 contended that the State-Opposite Party No.3 has not committed any illegality inasmuch as the Petitioners were reverted to their former post of Forest Guards by the Opposite Page 9 of 16 Party No.3 on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC dated 28.06.2024 and the same was done by following the due procedure of law. He also contended that the DPC while considering the case of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 also took note of the judgment of the learned O.A.T. in Manmath Kumar Samal’s case and accordingly, the recommendation was made in favour of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 for their promotion to the post of Forester. As such, learned counsel for the Private-Opposite Party Nos.13, 23, 24 & 25 contended that the Opposite Party No.3 has not committed any illegality in reverting the Petitioners while giving promotion to the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC. 10. Mr.Manas Pati, learned counsel for the Private- Opposite Party Nos.8 to 12, 15 to 22, 27, 28 & 31 submitted before this Court that the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 were given promotion on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC and such recommendation was made only after verification of the cases of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32. He further contended that the order passed by the learned O.A.T. in O.A. No.701 of 2018 in Manmath Kumar Samal’s Page 10 of 16 case has also been given effect to by the State-Opposite Parties and as such the same has attained finality. Therefore, the principles laid down in the aforesaid case by the learned Tribunal is applicable to the case of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 as they stand in a similar footing with the above named Manmath Kumar Samal. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 12, 15 to 22, 27, 28 & 31 further contended that the State-Opposite Party No.3 has not committed any illegality in giving promotion to the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 and as such the present writ application filed by the present Petitioners is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed. 11. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 have been given promotion by following the due procedure of law. He further contended that it is only on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC meeting which was held on 28.06.2024, that the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 have been given promotion. In a similar view, the Petitioners have been reverted back to the prior posts held by them on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC. Page 11 of 16 12. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of the factual scenario of the present writ application, further keeping in view the settled legal position, this Court at the outset observes that the main plank of argument that has been advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners is that while passing the order of reversion and giving promotion to the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 29.01.2024 in the earlier writ application, the State-Opposite Parties have failed to observe the principles of natural justice. This Court on a careful examination of the order passed in the earlier writ application dated 29.01.2024 found that the same was disposed of at the stage of admission by directing the State-Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioners in the earlier writ application in the light of the law laid down by the learned O.A.T. in Manmath Kumar Samal’s case, within a stipulated period of time. However, while passing the aforesaid order dated 29.01.2024 this Court had made it clear that no views were expressed on the merits of the case involved in the previous writ application. Therefore, it stands confirmed that while passing the aforesaid order dated 29.01.2024 neither any Page 12 of 16 notice was issued to the Private-Opposite Parties (i.e. the Petitioners in the present writ application) nor were they given any opportunity of hearing. 13. Similarly, this Court also observes that while reconsidering the case of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 pursuant to the order passed in the earlier writ application on 29.01.2024, although the Opposite Party No.3 passed an order giving promotion to the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 while reverting the present Petitioners, however, no opportunity of hearing whatsoever was provided to the present Petitioners. Therefore, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ application thereby challenging the conduct of the State-Opposite Parties in reverting them back to the post of Forest Guards, which they were holding earlier, particularly, prior to the order dated 29.01.2024. On a careful analysis of order dated 29.01.2024, this Court observes that the intention of this Court while passing such order was only to direct the State-Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioners in the earlier writ (who are Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 in the present writ) in the light of the law applicable to their cases. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.3 while considering the case Page 13 of 16 of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 should have provided an opportunity of hearing the present Petitioners as the Petitioners were likely to be affected adversely in the event any order was passed by the Opposite Party No.3, after considering the case of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32. Thus, this Court observes that before passing an order of reversion to the post of Forest Guards, the Petitioners were never provided an opportunity of hearing. Ergo, it can very well be surmised that the order of reversion under Annexures-1 and 2 series have been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Similarly, it is also observed that while considering the case of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 for promotion to the post of Forester, after reverting the present Petitioners to their previous posts, the Opposite Party No.3 had also not given any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. Thus, this Court observes that the outcome of such a proceeding which has caused prejudice to the present Petitioners has admittedly been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the aforesaid factual scenario, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the conduct of the State-Opposite Party No.3 in Page 14 of 16 passing the orders under Annexures-1 and 2 series is illegal in nature. 14. On a careful analysis of the factual background of the present writ application, further keeping in view the settled legal position, and further taking note of the fact that admittedly the principles of natural justice have not been followed by the Opposite Party No.3 while passing the orders under Annexures-1 & 2 series, this Court is of the view that the orders that have been passed in violation of a principles of natural justice are unsustainable in law. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the impugned orders under Annexures-1 and 2 series. Accordingly, the same are hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the case of the Petitioners as well as Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 strictly in accordance with law and by applying the principles of law decided in Manmath Kumar Samal’s case (supra), which is stated to have attained finality in the meantime. The Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to provide an opportunity of hearing to both the Petitioners as well as the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 before taking a final decision in the matter as has been directed hereinabove. It Page 15 of 16 is open to the Petitioners as well as the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 to put forth their grievance before the Opposite Party No.3 in the shape of memorandum/ representation supported by any decision/ citation relied upon by the respective parties, along with a certified copy of today’s judgment. The Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to conclude the entire process within a period of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s judgment by the parties. 15. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the Writ
Decision
Petition stands disposed of. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 02nd April, 2025/ Anil/ Jr. Steno (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 04-Apr-2025 11:27:20 Page 16 of 16