See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) (OAC) No.2734 of 2018 Pranaya Kumar Swain …. Petitioner Mr. G.R. Sethi, Advocate -versus- Collector, Jagatsinghpur and Others ….
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr. M.K Balabantaray, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 05.08.2024 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. None appeared for Opposite Party No.2, when the matter was taken up. Heard Mr. G.R. Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner & Mr.M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “i) To direct the respondents to place the applicant in appropriate place in the gradation list of Senior Clerk i.e. above respondent no.2 taking into account his initial date of appointment as 19.4.1999 and passing of preliminary accounts examination in the year 2010. // 2 // ii) To quash the order dtd.27.10.2018 under Annexure-10. iii) And pass such other order / orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice”. 4. It is contented that claiming fixation of his seniority above Opposite Party No.2, Petitioner made a detailed representation before Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-8. But without assigning any reason whatsoever, claim of the Petitioner as made in Annexure-8 was rejected by Opposite Party No.1 vide the impugned order dtd.27.10.2018 under Annexure-10. 4.1. It is contended that since no reason has been assigned while rejecting the claim, in view of the decision of this Court reported in the case of 2012(1) OLR- 87 and 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.2. This Court in Para-8 & 10 of the aforesaid judgment reported in 2012(1) OLR-87 has held as follows:- “8. Admittedly, the aforesaid order does not contain any reason for rejecting of the bid and cancellation of the tender. Law is no more res integra that an authority must pass a reasoned order indicating the material on which its conclusion are based. xxx xxx xxx is the heartbeat of every conclusion. 10. Reason It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless. [See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 11 SCC 510]”. Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 4.3. This Court in Para-13 of the judgment reported in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 has held as follows:- “13. After giving our anxius hearing to the matter and keeping in mind the position of law and the CCA Rules, we are constrained to hold that the learned Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter. The impugned order of the Tribunal smacks of application of judicial mind and conscience. It is to be remembered that the reasons are the soul of orders. Non- recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. The orders of the Court must reflect what weighed with the Court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the Petitioner”. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand supported the impugned order and contended that in view of the provisions contained under the relevant recruitment rules, Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit as prayed for in Annexure-8. Stand taken in Para-17 and 18 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- “17. That in obedience to the order of Hon'ble OAT, the seniority of the petitioner in service has been counted from the date of appointment on 44days basis and financial benefit has been extended from the date of joining in regular appointment in service. Besides, the pay of the petitioner has been upgraded notionally w.e.f. 19.04.2009 i.e. from the date of 44 days engagement and RACP and other service benefits has been extended as per existing principles of law. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has availed all the service benefits pursuant to the kind orders passed on different proceedings. Notwithstanding, extension of benefits granted to the petitioner he again approached the Tribunal in the present petition with a Page 3 of 5 // 4 // prayer to confer the seniority in the grade of Senior Clerk and quash the gradation list published on 28.07.2018. It is pertinent to submit here that the date of entry into regular service of the opposite party is much earlier than the petitioner. The table below gives the clear picture of the position. Party Date of Date of Promotion Regular Service to Senior Clerk Petitioner 22.07.2013 24.11.2017 Opp. Party No.2 13.10.2006 23.09.2011 From the above, it is evident that, the name of the petitioner has been placed in the gradation list in proper place and nothing has been made erroneously. 18. That, Rule 9 (a) (i) of Odisha Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment and Condition of Service of Clerks and Assistance in the District Offices and Offices of the Heads of Department (Amendment) Rules 1991, makes provision that "Promotion to the post of Senior Clerk shall be made from amongst the Junior Clerk who have rendered at least four years of service as such.... " 6 Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the grounds taken in the counter affidavit in support of the impugned order are not the grounds in which claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order. Not only that no reason has also been assigned while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner as made in Annexure-8. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to quash the order dtd.27.10.2018 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-10. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opposite Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Party No.1 to take a fresh lawful decision on the claim of the Petitioner as made in Annexure-8 within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Aug-2024 11:40:25 Page 5 of 5