The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.C.(OAC) Nos.2264, 2225,2258,2259,2260,2261,2262,2263,2265,2266, 2267 and 2345 of 2018 (Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) A.F.R. In W.P.C (OAC) No.2264/2018 Srinibas Sahoo … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate. -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N.Patnaik, A.G.A In W.P.C (OAC) No.2225/2018 Satyapriya Biswal … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 1 of 34 For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A. In W.P.C (OAC) No.2258/2018 Bibhu Prasad Pradhan … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A. In W.P.C (OAC) No.2259/2018 Diptiranjan Behera … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 2 of 34 Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A. In W.P.C (OAC) No.2260/2018 Tatan Kumar Das … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A. In W.P.C (OAC) No.2261/2018 Jayanta Kumar Mohapatra … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 3 of 34 Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A. In W.P.C (OAC) No.2262/2018 Sarojkanta Sahu … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A. In W.P.C (OAC) No.2263/2018 Sudhakar Khuntia … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 4 of 34 Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A. In W.P.C (OAC) No.2265/2018 Atish Patel … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A. In W.P.C (OAC) No.2266/2018 Manas Ranjan Moharana … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 5 of 34 Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A. In W.P.C (OAC) No.2267/2018 Aswini Kumar Majhi … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A. In W.P.C (OAC) No.2345/2018 S. Yudhistir Reddy … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 6 of 34 For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 18.11.2025. Sashikanta Mishra,J. All these Writ Petitions involve common facts and being heard together are disposed of by this common judgment. Case of the Petitioner 2. For brevity and convenience, W.P.(OAC) No.2264/2018 is treated as the lead case for consideration of facts. The prayer of the petitioner in the said Writ Petition is as follows; “In view of the facts mentioned in Para- 6 above, the applicant prays for the following relief(s). i) ii) The Original Application be allowed. Necessary Direction be made to the respondents to assign appropriate seniority in the Gradation list of terms of existing Dy. Subedar strictly Rules/orders governing the field by taking into consideration the comparative merit position as reflected in Notification of OSSC dated 02.04.2013 and the Rules in vogue forthwith or within a time stipulation; in W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 7 of 34 iii) iv) And moreover, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the Respondents to give the applicant appropriate placement above all those Promotee Havildars Majors who were promoted subsequent to the appointment of the applicant in the gradation list of Dy. Subedar Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed) strictly in terms of Rules orders in vogue by finalizing the tentative gradation list appropriately within the time stipulation; This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the Gradation lists prepared in the rank of Dy. Subedar/A.S.I/(Armed) under Annexure-8 Series and direct the respondents to recast the same appropriately by reflecting the seniority a son 31.08.2016 in f terms of the Merit Position reflected in the comparative Merit List dated 02.04.2013 of OSSC for the purpose and by placing the petitioner above all the Havildar Majors who were promoted subsequent to joining of the petitioner as Dy. Subedars on 24.06.2013. And pass any other order orders or to give issued so as direction/directions be complete relief to the applicant.” 3. Basing on the requisition of D.G. and I.G. of Police, Odisha, Cuttack, DGP (Fire) and DGP (Prisons), the Odisha Staff Selection Commission (OSSC) published an advertisement on 08.4.2011 for Combined Competitive Examination for recruitment to Group-C Posts in Odisha Police Service, Odisha Prison Service and Odisha Fire Service, 2011. 553 posts were notified in different categories including 144 posts of W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 8 of 34 Deputy Subedar of Police. Out of said posts, 39 were reserved for SEBC. Since such reservation was beyond the limit of 50%, some persons having approached the erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal, an interim order was passed on 21.3.2012 by the Tribunal directing publication of the select list confining the reservations it to 50%. As such, a select list was published on 06.9.2012 for 122 Deputy Subedars, which included 16 candidates of SEBC category. The candidates so selected were appointed by order dated 8.9.2012 and sent for training. The Tribunal disposed of the pending original applications by order dated 3.10.2012 whereby, the interim order dtd.21.3.2012 was vacated. The OSSC thereafter published a second select list on 23.3.2013 in continuation of the select list dated 06.9.2012 for remaining vacancies including 26 more candidates under SEBC category against the post of Deputy Subedar. The Petitioner’s name found place in the said list. Again, on 02.4.2013 the OSSC published a composite merit list (revised list) of 555 persons, W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 9 of 34 wherein the Petitioner was placed at Sl.No.263 and opposite party No.7 at Sl. No.283. The Petitioner was appointed vide order dtd.27.4.2013 and was sent for training. Be it noted that the post of Deputy Subedar has since been redesignated as S.I. of Police (Armed). 4. While the matter stood thus, the A.I.G., Police (Personnel), vide Notification dtd.27.9.2016 published a tentative gradation list of Deputy Subedars for the year 2016, reflecting the position as on 31.8.2016. In the said list, the Petitioner was placed at Sl. No.306. The Petitioner came to know that his batchmates, being selectees of the selection made pursuant to the advertisement dtd.8.4.2011 and included in the revised select list dtd.2.4.2013, had been divided into two groups on the basis of their appointment, ignoring the fact that they were all selected pursuant to the same advertisement, through the same selection process and had been included in the final select list. The batchmates of the petitioner who were selected as per the first batch select list dtd.6.9.2012 were W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 10 of 34 assigned seniority treating their date of service as 21.9.2012, whereas the Petitioner, who was issued with the appointment order dtd.27.4.2013 with reference to the revised select list dtd.2.4.2013, was assigned seniority by treating his date of appointment as 01.5.2013 i.e. the date on which he was deputed to training. The persons selected as per the first select list were placed from Sl.Nos.182 to 215 of the gradation list, whereas the Petitioner was at Sl. No.306. The petitioner’s grievance is that in the revised select list dtd.2.4.2013, some of the persons who were placed much below him were placed above him in the provisional gradation list. The persons placed at Sl. Nos.194 to 215 were placed below him in the revised select list dtd.2.4.2013, whereas the Petitioner was placed at Sl. No.263. In the revised select list, these persons were placed at Sl. No.283 downwards. Such placement, according to the petitioner is completely illegal and in violation of the Odisha Police Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 11 of 34 Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed) Order, 2012 (for short “Order, 2012”) as amended in 2016. 5. It is the further grievance of the Petitioner that some of the Havildar Majors, who were considered for promotion to the rank of Deputy Subedar on 20.6.2013 and were appointed as such vide Notification dated 21.6.2013, were en masse placed above him even though he had been appointed earlier i.e. on 27.4.2013 and had joined training on 01.5.2013. These Havildar Majors were placed from Sl.Nos.216 to 274, making them en masse senior to the direct recruits including the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, fixation of inter-se seniority of these Havildar Majors above him and his batchmates, who were appointed vide order dtd.27.4.2013 by treating them as recruits of 2013 is illegal. 6. The tentative gradation list was never brought to the knowledge of the petitioner immediately after its publication. The Petitioner having subsequently come to know about it, submitted his grievance in the form W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 12 of 34 of a representation, but the same was not considered. The tentative gradation list was finalized by order dtd.14.8.2019 without considering the objection raised by the Petitioner against the inter-se fixation of seniority. In the final gradation list so published, the petitioner is placed at Sl. No.380 and Opp. Party No.6 at Sl. No.216 and Opp. Party No.7 at 194. In the gradation list prepared on 22.10.2021, the petitioner was assigned seniority at Sl. No.167 whereas Opp. Party No.7 was assigned Sl. No.34. 7. Highlighting these facts, the petitioner had originally approached the erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal seeking the relief as already quoted herein before. Said original application was transferred to this Court and registered as the present Writ Petition. Case of State authorities 8. The stand of the State as reflected in its counter and further affidavit filed in the case is that initially, 144 vacancies of Deputy Subedar were notified W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 13 of 34 including 39 posts in SEBC category. Some of the applicants having filed O.A. Nos.835(C) of 2012 and 874 (C)/2012 challenging the reservation of candidates beyond 50%, the OAT, vide interim order dated 21.3.2012 directed the authorities to proceed with the selection process and also to issue appointment orders in favour of the selected candidates with the rider that the reservation shall not exceed 50% of the total vacancies. Accordingly, the result was published on 06.9.2012 for 121 posts of Deputy Subedars including 16 posts for SEBC candidates. The name of the Petitioner did not find place in the said select list. Subsequently, the O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dtd.03.10.2012, whereby the Tribunal did not interfere with the advertisement as regards 27% reservation in favour of S.E.B.C. candidates. The interim order also stood vacated. At this stage, one Susanta Rout filed O.A. No.3787(C)/2012 before the Tribunal with prayer to be selected against the remaining 15.75% vacancy under SEBC category. By order dated 21.12.2012, the W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 14 of 34 Tribunal disposed of the matter directing the authorities to proceed in accordance with law, keeping in view the terms of the advertisement. Clarification of the Government was sought, which being received on 23.3.2013, the result of the remaining 87 candidates i.e. 15.75% vacancy was published. After allocation of the posts, OSSC vide notice dated 02.4.2013 published revised selection list of 555 candidates of different services. The Petitioner and other candidates were appointed accordingly and deputed to undergo training w.e.f. 01.5.2013. As some candidates did not join, a revised select list was also published on 09.10.2013. 9. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Subedar and his recruitment was made as per the Odisha Special Armed Police Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2000 (for short “Rules 2000”). The tentative gradation list was prepared following Rule 16 of the OSAP Cadre Rules, 2000 taking into account the date of promotion/date of joining in the rank of Deputy Subedar. As regards the W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 15 of 34 grievance of the Petitioner, it is stated that in the first batch, only 16 SEBC candidates were selected. The Petitioner was appointed in the second batch. The Deputy Subedars whose names appeared in the tentative gradation list above the petitioner but were placed below him under the composite merit list (revised list) dtd.2.4.2013 belong to SC, ST and Ex- serviceman category. They were placed appropriately taking into account their date of undergoing training i.e. on 12.9.2012. As such, no one from S.E.B.C. category appointed in the first batch was shown below the name of the Petitioner in the composite merit list. 10. Out of 121 candidates, who were selected as Deputy Subedars vide Notification dtd.6.9.2012, 46 were upgraded to the rank of S.I. and 19 to the rank of Sergeant vide select list dtd.2.4.2013. The inter se seniority of such S.Is and Sergeants was fixed according to the date of their appointment as S.I. and Sergeant. The Government has followed the principle that all candidates appointed to the post by promotion W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 16 of 34 shall en-bloc be senior to the candidates appointed by way of direct recruitment. Said principle is invoked in the recruitment rules for different cadres of Police Department including Deputy Subedars. Accordingly, all Havildar Majors promoted to the rank of Deputy Subedar in the year 2013 were placed above the direct recruits in the same calendar year and the inter se seniority of all the Petitioners in tentative gradation list was fixed taking into account their date of joining following the above principle. The Odisha Police Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Sub-Inspector of Police) (Armed) Order, 2012 has been repealed vide the Odisha Police Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Sub-Inspector of Police) (Armed) Order, 2021 and further amended on 03.9.2021. As per order 3(a) of the said Order, the posts of Drill S.I. of Police, Sergeants and Deputy Subedar have been merged and re- designated as S.I. of Police (Armed). Order 25(6) of the said Order provides the principle for fixation of inter-se seniority to the effect that all promotees during the W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 17 of 34 calendar year shall be en-bloc senior to the direct recruits. Accordingly, the tentative gradation list was prepared on 13.5.2021 and objections were notified. Objections were received from different police establishments, which being complied, the final gradation list has been published on 22.10.2021, wherein the Petitioner is placed at Sl. No.167. 11. It is further stated that a Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) No.9216/2013 has been filed before this Court challenging reservation of posts i.e. 27% for SEBC category in the select list prepared by OSSC, which is sub-judice. Submissions 12. Heard Mr. B.B.Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government for the State. 13. Mr. Mohanty would argue that the first phase select list dtd.6.9.2012 was made subject to the final outcome of the original applications filed before the W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 18 of 34 Tribunal. The second list was published after disposal of the said original applications and vacation of the interim order. Therefore, the second list cannot be treated as a separate list but a continuation of the first list. In fact, the second list itself mentioned so. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner being a direct recruit was placed above Opp. Party No.7 in the composite merit list (revised list) and therefore, he could not have been placed below Opp. Party No.7 in the subsequent gradation list. Mr. Mohanty, further argues that 2012 Order, which came into force on 18.10.2012, governs the field as no other statutory order governing the inter se seniority for the post of Deputy Subedar was invoked prior to that date. The 2000 Rules does not apply to Deputy Subedar as is evident from Rule-3 thereof. The Opp. Party-authorities cannot therefore claim to have applied the provisions of the 2000 Rules to fix the inter-se seniority. The date of joining and date of promotion have nowhere been prescribed as the basis of fixation of inter se seniority, which is to be fixed purely as per the composite select W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 19 of 34 list (revised list). The State cannot apply two Rules/Orders simultaneously while preparing one gradation list. Even if 2000 Rules are applied, then as per Rule 17(i), it is the select list which shall form the basis for preparation of gradation list. If the 2012 Order is applied then Order 23(5) also speaks about fixation of seniority as per the select list prepared by OSSC. Mr. Mohanty also argues that since the first phase selection was made subject to the final outcome of the O.A., the appointees as per the said list do not acquire any preferential right nor any equitable right was created in their favour. The candidates belonging to UR and SEBC category who were selected and appointed in the first phase in the select list dtd.6.9.2012 prior to the Petitioner will not be affected as their merit position is higher than him. It is only the SC and ST cases including Opp. Party No.7, who may be affected. 14. Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that the Writ Petition is not W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 20 of 34 maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Petitioner has impleaded only one person from each category i.e. direct recruits and promotees but as seniority has accrued in favour of persons who are
Decision
above the petitioner, entertaining the Writ Petition and granting the relief claimed by the petitioner would unsettle the settled position of more than a decade without giving a chance of personal hearing to the said persons. On merits, Mr. Patnaik would argue that the authorities have followed the general principle to determine seniority on the basis of date of joining in the absence of any rule. According to Mr. Patnaik, it is trite law that when more than one method of induction into service is available in a cadre then the promotees are to be placed en-bloc senior to the direct recruits of that year. The year of engagement of the petitioner is 2013. The promotees of the same year therefore have to be placed above him. Further, the petitioner cannot claim to supersede the direct recruits who entered the cadre in the year 2012, he not having entered the cadre at that time. The G.A. Department Notification W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 21 of 34 dtd.09.9.2021 clearly provides that where direct recruitment, promotional recruitment and/or selection recruitment are prescribed in a rank, the seniority of the candidates appointed in a calendar year out of the select list so prepared shall be arranged in the order in which their names appear in the respective merit lists/select list and shall be fixed and en-bloc in the calendar year in which the appointment orders are issued and in the sequence prescribed in the relevant cadre rules governing the cadre. A conjoint reading of Clauses 23 (5) and (6) would reveal that candidates appointed by way of limited competitive examination shall be en-bloc senior to the direct recruits, whereas they will be placed below the promotees en-bloc in the same year. 15. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions. Since the maintainability of the Writ Petition has been raised by the State counsel, it is felt proper to decide the said issue at the first instance before delving into the merits of the case. According to W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 22 of 34 learned State counsel, the Petitioner challenges the position of Opp. Party Nos.6 and 7 in the gradation list, but in case his contention is accepted, other similarly placed members of the service would be adversely affected. The Petitioner not having impleaded them, the Writ Petition is bad for non-joinder of parties. The Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that as per the settled position of law, he need not implead each and every person likely to be affected as party and that it would suffice if he selectively impleads only a few employees. In the instant case, he has impleaded one person from each category i.e. direct recruits (Opp. Party No.7) and promotees (Opp. Party No.6). In support of his contention as above, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Shukla and others v. Arvind Rai and others1. 16. As is evident, the Petitioner’s grievance is two- fold namely, (i) placement of Opp. Party No.7, a direct 1 (2022)12 SCC 579 W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 23 of 34 recruit above him in the gradation list despite featuring below him in the select list; and (ii) placement of Opp. Party No.6, a promotee, above him in the gradation list despite being promoted after the direct recruitment of the Petitioner. Thus, two categories of employees are involved in the challenge of the Petitioner. It is an acceptable argument that in case the contentions of the Petitioner are accepted, the inter-se seniority position as a whole would be affected and thereby employees similarly situated as Opp. Party Nos.6 and 7 would certainly be affected. But then, one employee from each category having been impleaded, this Court is of the view that the interests of the respective groups stand adequately protected. This is being said for the reason that the employees of each of the groups stand on the same footing and therefore, the contentions that may be raised by them cannot be different from each other. Recognizing this principle, the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Shukla and others (supra) held as follows: W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 24 of 34 to “xx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx In matters service relating jurisprudence, time and again it has been held that it is not essential to implead each and every one who could be affected if a Section of such affected but employees is impleaded then the interest of all is represented and protected. In view of the above, it is well settled that impleadment of a few of the affected employees would be sufficient compliance of the principle of joinder of parties and they could defend the interest of all affected persons in their representative capacity. Non-joining of all the parties cannot be held to be fatal.” This Court is therefore unable to accept the contentions advanced by the learned State counsel with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition and holds that the Writ Petition is not bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties. 17. As already stated, the grievance of the Petitioner is two-fold: - Despite being placed at higher position in the composite (revised) select list drawn on merit, he has been placed below Opposite Party No.7, who is also a direct recruit like him in the gradation list. Secondly, Opposite Party No.6 was promoted after the direct W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 25 of 34 recruitment of the Petitioner and therefore, placing him higher than him in the gradation list is unjustified and arbitrary. 18. Coming to the first question raised by the Petitioner, it is seen that in the composite revised list published by the OSSC on 02.4.2013, the Petitioner was in fact placed at Sl. No.263 whereas Opp. Party No.7 was placed at 283. However, while preparing the gradation list on 27.9.2016, the Opp. Party No.7 was placed at Sl.No.194, whereas the Petitioner was placed at Sl. No.306. It is to be noted that the Petitioner was a S.E.B.C. candidate while Opp. Party No.7 was a S.C. candidate. It is not the Petitioner’s case that any person belonging to the SEBC category and placed below him in the merit list (revised select list) was placed above him in the gradation list. In fact, in the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is emphatically averred that in the first select list published on 06.9.2012, 16 SEBC candidates found place, all of whom had occupied higher position on merit. The W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 26 of 34 Petitioner can therefore, have no grievance in such respect. 19. As regards the placement of Opp. Party No.7, two things are relevant. Firstly, he was appointed in the first select list i.e. w.e.f. 21.9.2012 whereas the Petitioner was appointed on 01.5.2013. Secondly, Opp. Party No.7 belonged to the S.C. category and was appointed in the first phase against the 24 Schedule Caste vacancies available. It is forcefully argued on behalf of the Petitioner that both the Petitioner and Opp. Party No.7 having appeared in the same selection test pursuant to the same advertisement but appointed on different dates cannot be treated separately but have to be treated as recruitees of the same selection. This Court is not inclined to accept such an argument for the reason that even though Opp. Party No.7 had secured a lesser position than the Petitioner in the merit list, yet he, having been selected and appointed against the vacancies earmarked for the S.C. W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 27 of 34 candidates in the first phase select list, the Petitioner cannot have any grievance on such score. 20. Coming to the second question urged by the Petitioner, it is seen that Opp. Party No.6 being a general candidate was promoted to the post of Deputy Subedar from the post of Havildar Major. Such promotion was effected on 24.6.2013. According to the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the State, the inter-se seniority was fixed as per the 2000 Rules, particularly, Rule 16 thereof. Perusal of the Rules leaves the Court wondering as to how the same could be applied to Deputy Subedars when Rule 3 thereof mentions Odisha Special Armed Police Service as being comprised of the following; Commandant “(a)Group ‘A’ (i) (ii) Deputy Commandant, and (iii) Assistant Commandant (b)Group-‘B’ (i) Subedar Major (ii) Subedar, and (iii) Reserve Inspector” W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 28 of 34 21. The post of Deputy Subedar does not find place at all in the said Rules. It has also been mentioned elsewhere that the fixation of inter-se seniority was based on the principle laid down in the 2012 Orders. As per Clause-6 of Order 23, all promotees appointed in the calendar year shall be en-bloc senior to the directly recruited S.I. of Police (Armed). There is no dispute at the bar that these Rules underwent an amendment w.e.f. 16.9.2016, whereby Clause-6 was substituted as follows: “The inter se seniority in the rank of Inspector of Police (Armed) shall be determined as per the position assigned to them in the select list approved by the Government.” 22. The 2012 Order was superseded by OPS (MR and CS) (Armed), Order 2021 w.e.f. 04.2.2021. Though Order 25 deals with inter-se seniority among appointees yet it does not say anything as to the inter group seniority among direct recruits, promotees and limited competition (selection appointees). The impugned gradation list was published on 27.9.2016 i.e. after coming into force of the 2016 amendment to W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 29 of 34 the 2012 Orders. In other words, the gradation list was prepared when the amended order was in force. As already stated, the amended order substituted the existing Clause-6 of Order 25 which provided that promotees of a calendar year shall be en-bloc senior to the direct recruits of that calendar year. No other Rule or executive instruction was placed before this Court governing this aspect. 23. On the above basis, it is forcibly contended by Mr. Mohanty that since the OACP Amendment order, 2016 had already come into force as on the date of coming into force of the final gradation list of Deputy Subedars prepared on 14.8.2019, the amended orders 23(5) and 23(6) are to be applied which prescribe fixation of inter se seniority by substituting the earlier Order 23(6) on the basis of select list. Learned State counsel, in reply, argues that the fixation of inter se seniority has to relate back to the time when the concerned employee(s) were borne in the cadre. In other words, the prevailing rules governing the inter-se W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 30 of 34 seniority has to be applied and not the Rules in vogue during preparation of the gradation list. 24. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the rival contentions. It is stated at the cost of repetition that in so far as the Petitioner and Opp.Party No.6 are concerned, both of them were appointed as Deputy Subedar of Police in the calendar year, 2013 with the Petitioner being a direct recruit, and the Opp.Party No.6, a promotee. At that time, the 2012 order was in force. Mr. Mohanty has heavily relied upon Order 23(5), which reads as follows; “23(5) Inter se seniority of direct recruit Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed) shall be in the order in which their names are arranged in the select list prepared by the Commission” 25. This, according to Mr. Mohanty makes the Petitioner senior to the Opp.Party No.6. This Court is unable to accept such contention for the reason that bare reading of Sub-order (5) would reveal that the same relates specifically to the inter-se seniority of direct recruits of S.I. of Police (Armed) and does not say W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 31 of 34 anything as regards the inter-group seniority. As already stated, appointment to the post of S.I. of Police (Armed) can be by way of direct recruitment, limited departmental competitive examination and promotion. Sub-Order (5) does not say anything as regards the fixation of seniority among these three sources of appointment. However, Sub-Order (6) does so in the following words; “All candidates appointed to the posts by promotion shall en-bloc be senior to candidates appointed by Limited Departmental way the Competitive Examination same year.” in of 26. Read plainly, it means the promotees shall be en-bloc senior to the other two groups and those appointed by way of limited departmental competitive examination shall be en-bloc senior to the direct recruits. This, in short, was the rule governing the inter se as well inter-group seniority of S.I. of Police (Armed) in the calendar year 2013 when both Petitioner as well as Opp.Party No.6 were appointed as such. According to the Petitioner, the relevant date W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 32 of 34 would be the date on which the gradation list was prepared. This Court is not persuaded to accept the argument as it would lead to a fallacious position in that the seniority as already fixed by virtue of the existing rules would perforce be altered. In any event, the amendment rules which came w.e.f. 16.9.2016 would always be prospective in their operation. So, only because the gradation list was prepared long after the appointment of the concerned candidates cannot mean that the rule governing their inter-se seniority at the time of their appointment would have no application. It is trite law that inter se seniority is to be governed by the existing rules. Therefore, the date of preparation and finalization of the gradation list, supposed to reflect the seniority of the incumbents, would be inconsequential. Otherwise, it would result in nullifying the effect of a particular rule that was already in force at the relevant time. The argument advanced to the contrary is therefore, not acceptable. W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 33 of 34 27. From a conspectus of the analysis and discussion made, it is evident that both the Petitioner and Opp.Party No.6 having been appointed during the calendar year 2013 would be subject to the 2012 order. The subsequent amendments to the rule would have no relevance. Viewed thus, the Opp.Party No.6 being a promotee was rightly placed above the Petitioner, who is a direct recruit irrespective of their dates of appointment/joining. This Court is therefore, not persuaded to interfere with the impugned gradation list. 28. In the result, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Petition, which is therefore, dismissed. 29. This judgment shall govern the connected writ applications, which are also dismissed. ………..…….……………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Nov-2025 10:57:39 Ashok Kumar Behera W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 34 of 34