The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 25719 of 2022 ..... Kedarnath Pradhani Petitioner Mr. P.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. A.K. Behera, Advocate State of Odisha &Ors. -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA Mr. G.K. Rath, Advocate (Opp. Party Nos. 5 & 6) THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 16.09.2025 Order No.01 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Mr. A.K. Behera, learned counsel, Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State- Opp. Parties and Mr. G.K. Rath, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 5 & 6. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.12.08.2022 so passed by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-1. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of absorption as against the post of Inspector of Supplies from the date similar benefit was extended vide order dtd.04.06.2012 under Annexure-22 was rejected. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 12.11.2009 under Annexure-5 Petitioner and the Private Page 1 of 7. Opp. Parties faced the selection process for recruitment to the post of Marketing Intelligence Inspector.
Legal Reasoning
5. It is contended that vide office order dtd.23.06.2011 so issued by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-8, Petitioner along with the Private Opp. Parties was appointed as against the said post. In the said office order, Petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 2 and Private Opp. Parties were placed at Sl. Nos. 34 & 35. Subsequently, vide another office order issued on 13.07.2011, Petitioner along with the Private Opp. parties was placed to different districts of the State. 5.1. It is however contended that while continuing as Marketing Intelligence Inspector in terms of the order of appointment issued under Annexure-8, without any rhyme and reason, the Private Opp. Parties were elevated as against the post of Inspector of Supplies vide office order dtd.04.06.2012 under Annexure-22. Subsequently, vide another office order issued on 03.09.2012 under Annexure-15, Private Opp. Parties were regularly appointed as Inspector of Supplies on absorption. However, Petitioner got the said benefit of regularization as against the post of Inspector of Supplies vide office order dtd.25.09.2020 under Annexure-26. 5.2. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that challenging such action of the Opp. Parties in elevating persons placed below in the merit list as Inspect of Supplies vide order dtd.04.06.2012 under Annexure-22 and subsequent regularization vide order dtd.03.09.2012 under Annexure-15, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.C.(OA) No. 173 of 2018. This Court vide order dtd.07.07.2022 under Annexure-23, when directed Opp. Party No. 1 to consider the grievance of the Petitioner, to be made by way of a representation, Petitioner made a Page 2 of 7. detailed representation in terms of the said order under Annexure- 25. 5.3. However, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of absorption from the date the Private Opp. Parties were so absorbed vide order dt.03.09.2012 under Annexure-15, basing on the order of elevation issued under Annexure-22 was rejected. 5.4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since in the merit list Petitioner was placed above the Private Opp. Parties and accordingly, he was also placed above the Private Opp. Parties in office order dtd.23.06.2011 under Annexure-8 and so also order dtd.13.07.2011 under Annexure-10, without elevating the petitioner ahead of the Private Opp. Parties, Private Opp. Parties should not have been elevated as against the post of Inspector of Supplies and subsequently regularized on absorption vide order dtd.03.09.2012 under Annexure-15. 5.5. It is contended that taking into account the position of the Petitioner in the merit list as well as the order of appointment issued under Annexure-8, Petitioner was required to be given the benefit of elevation ahead of the Private Opp. Parties as well as consequential absorption in the said post. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order passed in rejecting the Petitioner’s claim is not sustainable in the eye of law and Petitioner is eligible to get the benefit of elevation and regularization in terms of order dt.04.06.2012 and 03.09.2012 under Annexure-22 and 15. 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submissions basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so Page 3 of 7. filed by Opp. Party No. 1. Reliance was placed to the stand taken in Para 5 & 6 of the said counter, which reads as follows:- “5. That in reply to the allegations and averments made in Para-2 (a) to (c) of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the selection of candidates for recruitment of 163 (49- Regular I/S, 70-I/S Schematic post and 44-MIIs Schematic post) was strictly made on the basis of total weightage of marks secured in Secondary (HSC). Higher Secondary (CHSE) and Graduation. The merit list of candidates was also drawn up by giving weightage to the percentage of marks obtained in the above 3 (three) examinations. The appointment orders were issued simultaneously against I/S (Regular) (1" Priority), 1/S Schematic post (2nd Priority) and MII Schematic post (3 Priority) as per the merit list. But all the posts could not be filled up due to resignation/ non joining of some candidates in the post of I/S(regular) & I/S (schematic), hence, in order to fill up the aforesaid vacancies as per priority and to maintain the appointment process as per merit list as decided by the Selection Committee from time to time some candidates those who already joined as 1/S (Schematic) & MIIs (Schematic) were elevated to the post of I/S(Regular) & I/S (Schematic) respectively. Hence, elevation cannot be treated as Promotion. 6. That in reply to the allegations and averments made in
Decision
Para-2 (d) of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that as per views of Finance Department on dated 20.10.2011, 44 MIIs (Schematic) cannot be absorbed against the regular vacancies of Inspector of Supplies as they have been recruited in a lower scale of pay. But later it is observed that due to resignation/ non joining of some candidates vacancies were arisen in the post of 1/S(regular) & 1/S (schematic). Hence, as decided in the Selection Committee time to time some candidates joined in I/S (Schematic) & MIIs Page 4 of 7. (Schematic) were elevated to the post of I/S(Regular) & I/S (Schematic) respectively in order to maintain the appointment process as per merit list. As such, 4 MIIs were firstly elevated to the post of I/S (Schematic) and subsequently they were regularised in the post of regular I/S following due procedure and as per views of Finance Department. Hence, the averment made in this para is not true. Copy of Finance Department views on dated 20.10.2011 is annexed herewith as Annexure-B/1. 6.1. It is also contended that after creation of 226 vacant posts of Inspector of Supplies by the Finance Department vide Annexure- B/1, in the proceeding of the selection committee held on 05.12.2011 under Annexure-C/1, since the Committee recommended the names of the Private Opp. Parties to get the benefit of elevation, basing on such recommendation of the selection committee, order dtd.04.06.2012 under Annexure-22 was issued. It is also contended that while continuing on such elevation Private Opp. Parties were absorbed as against the post of Inspector of Supplies vide order dtd.03.09.2012 under Annexure-15 along with others taking into account the vacancies available. 6.2. It is contended since the Committee in its proceeding dtd.05.12.2011 under Annexure-C/1, recommended the claim of the Private Opp. Parties for their elevation against the vacant post of Inspector of Supplies and such recommendation was made taking into account the status of the Petitioners having belong to reserve category candidate, no illegality or irregularity can be found with such action of the Opp. Parties. 6.3. It is also contended that in the meantime Petitioner since has already got the benefit of regularization as against the post of Page 5 of 7. Inspector of Supplies vide order dtd.25.09.2020 under Annexure- 26, Petitioner has got no further grievance. 7. Similar contention was also made by the learned counsel appearing for the Private Opp. Parties as made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that basing on the advertisement issued on 12.11.2009 under Annexure-5, Petitioner along with the Private Opp. Parties were appointed as against the post of Marketing Intelligence Inspector vide office order dtd.23.06.2011 under Annexure-8. As found from the said order, Petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 2 and the Private Opp. Parties were placed at Sl. No. 34 & 35. As found while so continuing vide order dtd.04.06.2012 under Annexure-22, Private Opp. Parties were elevated as Inspector of Supplies and subsequently were absorbed as against the post of Inspector of Supplies vide office order dtd.03.09.2012 under Annexure-15. 8.1. This Court after going through the stand taken by Opp. Party No. 1 in the counter affidavit, nowhere found any documents having been provided showing the basis of such elevation and the decision taken by the Selection Committee under Annexure-C/1 in that regard. Since no document has been filed by the State-Opp. Party No. 1 in the counter affidavit showing the basis of such elevation of some of the Marketing Intelligence Inspector as Inspector of supplies, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner being placed above the Private Opp. Parties in the merit list, he should have been given preference while making such elevation as against the post of Inspector of Supplies. In absence of any such Page 6 of 7. document available in the case record showing the basis of such elevation and the vacancy in reserved category, it is the view of this Court that Opp. Party No. 1 by applying a pick and choose policy elevated Private Opp. Parties to the post of Inspector of Supplies vide order dtd.04.06.2012 under Annexure-22. Committee as per the considered view of this Court also took the decision under Annexure-C/1, without following the settled position of law. 8.2. In that view of the matter, this Court without interfering with the impugned elevation and absorption of the Private Opp. Parties as against the post of Inspector of Supplies and taking into account the fact that Petitioner has already got the said benefit vide order dtd.25.09.2020 under Annexure-26, directs Opp. Party No. 1 to extend retrospective promotion to the Petitioner to the rank of Inspector of Supplies from the date Private Opp. Parties got the said benefit vide order dtd.03.09.2012 under Annexure-15. However, such benefits be made available on notional basis only. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to pass an order in that regard within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. 9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 19:00:54 Page 7 of 7.