The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C)(OAC) No.4211 of 2014 Tirupati Prasad Beguria …. Petitioner Mr. N. Rath, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 15.11.2023 Order No 12. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Memo containing CCRs for the period from 2005-06 to 2011-12 produced in Court be kept in record. 3. Heard Mr. N. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “i) To direct the respondent no-1 & 2 to promote the applicant for promotion to ORS Group-B for the recruitment year 2012 with effect from the date when juniors have been promoted vide annexure-3 with all service and consequential benefits. ii) To pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper.” // 2 // 5. It is contended that for recruitment to the Orissa Revenue Services (ORS) (Group-B) by way of promotion for the recruitment year 2012, Opp. Party No. 2 vide letter dtd.12.09.2013 under Annexure-1 requested all RDCs to submit the names of eligible candidates for consideration of their claim to get the benefit of promotion to ORS (Group-B) for the recruitment year 2012. It is contended that the name of the Petitioner was duly recommended by the Opp. Party No. 3 vide letter dtd.07.10.2013 under Annexure- 2. In the said recommendation Petitioner’s name was reflected at Sl. No. 6, whereas the names of his juniors were reflected at Sl. Nos. 12 & 18. 5.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that for the period 2005-06 to 2011-12, though the Petitioner had outstanding CCR save and except for the period 2006-07 where it was held as very good, but with the indication that fit for promotion, his case was not considered by the DPC while considering the case of his juniors with due recommendation in their favour. 5.2. It is contended that basing on the recommendation made by the DPC, persons placed at Sl. Nos. 12 & 18 of Annexure-2 were given the benefit of promotion to the rank of ORS (Group-B) for the recruitment year 2012 vide Notification dtd.24.10.2014 under Annexure-3. The Petitioner being aggrieved by such action of the Opp. Parties in denying him the benefit of promotion even though he was eligible and entitled in all respect is before this Court in the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. 5.3. It is contended that since Petitioner had got outstanding CCR for the entire period in question, the DPC should not have ignored his claim while recommending the name of his juniors. It is Page 2 of 5 // 3 // accordingly contended that the Petitioner in view of having outstanding CCR for the entire period save and except for the period 2006-07 which was very good, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of promotion from the date his juniors got the said benefit vide Notification dtd.24.10.2014 under Annexure-3. 6. Mr. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter so filed by the Opp. Party No. 2. It is contended that even though Petitioner had got outstanding CCRs for the period 2005-06, 2008- 09, 2009-10 & 2010-11, the his CCR for the period 2006-07 was not available by the time the DPC considered his case. Similarly the CCR for the period 2007-08 since was good, the case of the Petitioner was not recommended vis-à-vis his juniors, who were found to have got outstanding CCR for the entire period. It is accordingly contended that in view of such nature of CCR of the Petitioner for the period 2007-08 and non-availability of the CCR for the period 2006-07, the case of the Petitioner was not recommended by the DPC, while recommending the case of the persons placed at Sl. Nos. 12 & 18 of Annexure-2. 7. To the stand taken in the counter, this court when directed the learned counsel for the Petitioner to provide the CCRs of the Petitioner, the same was produced in Court today so obtained bythe Petitioner under the RTI. Basing on the CCR so provided by the Petitioner, Mr. Rath contended that the Petitioner has got outstanding CCR for the period 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Even though CCR for the period from 2006-07 was treated as very good, but the reporting authority clearly indicated that the Petitioner is fit for promotion and that was also accepted by the counter signing authority and accepting Page 3 of 5 // 4 // authority. It is accordingly contended that since the Petitioner has got outstanding CCR for the period from 2005-06 to 2011-12 save and except 2006-07, where he was held fit for promotion, his claim could not have been overlooked by the DPC while recommending the case of his juniors for the recruitment year 2012. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record as well as the CCRs produced in Court today, this Court finds that the Petitioner had got outstanding CCR for the period 2005-06 to 2011-12 save and except the CCR for the period 2006-07, which is very good, but with the finding that Petitioner is fit for promotion. Not only that, CCR of the Petitioner for the period 2010-11 was excellent and outstanding. 8.1. Considering the nature of CCR of the Petitioner for the period from 2005-06 to 2011-12, this Court is of the view that the case of the Petitioner could not have been overlooked by the DPC. The DPC also wrongly held the CCR of the Petitioner for the period 2007-08 as good, though it is outstanding. 8.2. In view of such position, this Court while disposing the writ petition directs the Opp. Party No. 2 to conduct a review DPC and reconsider the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of promotion to ORS (Group-B) as against the recruitment year 2012. Such a review DPC be conducted within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such consideration if it is found that the Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of promotion, then such benefit be extended in his favour from the date his juniors got the said benefit vide Notification dtd.23.10.2014. Opp. Party Page 4 of 5 // 5 // No. 2 shall pass appropriate order basing on the recommendation of the DPC within a further period of four (4) weeks. 9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Nov-2023 10:36:51 Page 5 of 5