The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.23561 of 2021 Purna Chandra Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr. B.S. Tripathy-1, Adv. State of Odisha & Anr. -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 19.08.2025 14. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “On the facts and in the circumstances stated above, your petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to; Quash the impugned letter dt.30.07.2021 of the opp. party No.2 in Annexure-10 on the ground of being contrary to law and contrary to Rule-13(3) of the Rules, 1994 read with Rule-3(b) of Orissa Civil Service (Criteria for Promotion) Rules, 1992; and there by ii) Direct the said opp.party to modify the impugned Gradation List of ASOs in Annexure-11 by placing the petitioner as Sl.No.1 of the said Gradation List of ASOs for consideration of his case for promotion to the next higher post of Section Officer and // 2 // pass such other order(s) as deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice and fair play And for which act of your kindness, petitioner shall as in duty bound, ever pray.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner while continuing as an Auxillary staff in the establishment of Controllers of Account, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, in terms of the letter issued on 11.12.2013 under Annexure-4, Petitioner was promoted to the post of Sr. Assistant vide order dtd.20.05.2015 under Annexure-6 as against the 10% vacancy meants for such staffs. However, vide another office order issued on 20.05.2015 under Annexure-7 person continuing as against the post of Junior Assistant in the establishment of Controller of Accounts were promoted to the rank of Senior Assistant. 4.1. It is contended that Petitioner since was placed below the other group who were given with the benefit of promotion vide order dtd.20.05.2015 under Annexure-7 in the provisional gradation list of Senior Assistant published under Annexure-8, Petitioner filed his objection to the same vide Annexure-9. But without proper appreciation of the Petitioner’s claim, the same was rejected vide order dtd.30.07.2021 under Annexure-10 and after such rejection, he was placed in the final gradation list in the same position as was his position in the provisional gradation list, below the Page 2 of 7 // 3 // Senior Assistants promoted vide order under Annexure-7.
Legal Reasoning
4.2. It is contended that since Petitioner along with the other group were given the benefit of promotion to the rank of Senior Assistant on the same date i.e. vide order dtd.20.05.2015 under Annexures-6 & 7, Petitioner should have been placed above the other group, taking into account his initial date of appointment. However, without proper appreciation, Petitioner’s claim was rejected vide order under Annexure-10 and he was placed in the same position in the final gradation list published under Annexure-11. 4.3. It is accordingly contended that the impugned rejection made vide order dtd.30.07.2021 under Annexure-10 and placement of the Petitioner in the rank of Senior Assistant in the final gradation list published on 30.07.2021 under Annexure-11 are not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr.C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand placing reliance on the Notification issued by the G.A. Department on 11.04.1994 under Annexure-A/2 contended that Petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-13(3) of the Orissa (Method of Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Assistants and Section Page 3 of 7 // 4 // Officers of the Heads of Department) Rules, 1994, (in short ‘Rules’). Rule-13(3) of the Rules reads as follows:- “13(3) 10% of the vacancies in the rank of Senior Assistant in the offices of Heads of Departments shall be filled up by recruitment of competent Senior Grade Typists, Senior Grade Diarists, Senior Grade Recorders and Senior Grade Despatchers of that office if they have rendered 10 years of continuous service including 3 years in the respective Senior Grades and have possessed Matriculation or equivalent qualification and have been selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted under Rule 16” 5.1. It is contended that other group who got the benefit of promotion vide another order issued on 20.05.2015 under Annexure-7, were so promoted in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-13 of the Rules. Rule-13(1) and 13(2) of the Rules reads as follows:- “13.(1) 90% of vacancies in the rank of Senior Assistants in the Office of a Heads of Departments shall be filed up by the eligible Junior Assistants of that office on being selected by the Department Promotion Committee. (2) Ne Junior Assistant shall be promoted to the rank of Senior Assistant unless he has put in at least and has successfully passed the Departmental Examination] [Provided that the Junior Assistants who have already passed the final Accounts Examination conducted by the Board of Revenue shall not be required to pass the Departmental Examination provided in sub-rule (2).”. 5.2. It is contended that as provided under Rule-20 of the said Rules, persons promoted in terms of the provision contained under Rule-13(3) of the Rules shall Page 4 of 7 // 5 // rank below those appointed under Rule-13(1) of the Rules. Rule-20 of the Rules reads as follows:- The relative seniority of each person “20.(1) appointed to a particular cadre of the service in a particular year shall be determined with reference to his position in the respective select list. (2) The persons appointed in a year under sub-rule 3 of Rule 13 shall take rank below those appointed under sub-rule(1) thereof. (3) The persons appointed in a year under rule 12.A of Part-IIIA shall take rank below those appointed under rule 12(6)”. 5.3. It is accordingly contended that since the other group who were promoted to the rank of Senior Assistant were so promoted in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-13(1) & (2) of the Rules, they are to be been placed above the present Petitioner who was promoted in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-13(3) of the Rules. 5.4. It is accordingly contended that after due consideration of the objection so made by the Petitioner under Annexure-9 and the provisions contained under Rule-20 of the Rules, the order under Annexure-10 was passed and Petitioner was placed in the same position in the final gradation list published under Annexure-11. 5.5. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned rejection vide order under Annexure-10 and the placement of the Page 5 of 7 // 6 // Petitioner in the rank of Senior Assistant in the final gradation list published under Annexure-11. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was given with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Senior Assistant in terms of provisions contained under Rule-13(3) of the Rules vide order dtd.20.05.2015 under Annexure-6. The other group got the benefit of promotion to the rank of Senior Assistant vide order dtd.20.05.2015 under Annexure-7 in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-13(1) & (2) of the rules. 6.1. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule-20 of the Rules, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner has been rightly placed in the gradation list below the promotes promotees vide
Decision
order dtd.20.05.2015 under Annexure-7 in the final gradation list published under Annexure-11, with rejection of his objection vide order dtd.30.07.2021 under Annexure-10. 6.2. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the action of the Opposite Parties in rejecting Petitioner’s objection vide order under Annexure-10 and placing him below the promotees in the gradation list issued under Annexure-11. This Page 6 of 7 // 7 // Court accordingly is not inclined to interfere with the same. 7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 03-Sep-2025 12:44:43 Page 7 of 7