Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.C) No.25507 of 2024 (In the matter of a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Anil Kumar Sahoo …. Petitioner(s) -versus- Tata Power Central Odisha Distribution Ltd., Bhubaneswar & Anr. …. Opposite Party(s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) For Opp. Party(s) : : -versus- Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Adv. Mr. L.K. Maharana, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATES OF HEARING:-30.05.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-20.06.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, challenges the action of the Opposite Parties in not shortlisting him for promotion to the post of Junior Manager (Electrical), and seeks quashing of the notice dated 02.07.2024, the relevant stipulations in the order dated 08.12.2023, and Page 1 of 13 Signature Not Verified
Legal Reasoning
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 the consequential order dated 21.08.2024 issued by Opposite Party No.2. 2. The Petitioner further prays for consideration for his promotion to the post of Junior Manager (Electrical), along with all consequential service and financial benefits. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows: (i) The petitioner completed ITI in Electrical Trade in the year 2009 and was thereafter admitted to the Diploma course in Electrical Engineering at Holy Institute of Technology, Berhampur, Ganjam, as a lateral entry candidate for the academic session 2010–2012. According to the Principal of the institution, the course was completed on 30.04.2012. However, the result of the examination was published on 26.06.2012. (ii) The erstwhile CESU issued an advertisement on 09.05.2011 inviting applications for the post of Junior Artisan Trainee from eligible candidates possessing an ITI qualification in Electrical Trade. The petitioner applied pursuant to the advertisement and was selected for appointment. (iii) Pursuant to such selection, he joined the erstwhile CESU as a Junior Artisan Trainee on 25.05.2012. By the date of his joining, the diploma course had already concluded, and he was awaiting publication of the result. (iv) As per the applicable rules, upon completion of four and a half years of service as a Junior Artisan Trainee, the petitioner was regularised in Page 2 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 the post of Junior Artisan-A with effect from 24.11.2016 by order dated 20.12.2016. (v) During the course of his employment, the petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Lineman-C by order dated 02.02.2021, and thereafter to the post of Lineman-B by order dated 03.05.2023. (vi) While the petitioner was continuing in service and discharging his duties, the erstwhile CESU was taken over and vested with TPCODL with effect from 01.06.2020. (vii) Thereafter, TPCODL introduced a one-time scheme permitting existing non-executive regular employees, serving in various grades under the Technical and Working classification and possessing higher qualifications such as a Diploma or Degree in Electrical Engineering, to apply for promotion to the post of Junior Manager (Electrical). As per the eligibility criteria prescribed under the scheme, inter alia, the candidate was required to have completed the Diploma or Degree in Electrical Engineering prior to joining service under TPCODL (or CESU). (viii) Pursuant to the said scheme, the petitioner applied for promotion, and his application was duly scrutinised and accepted by the authorities. Since the selection process involved a written test followed by an interview, the petitioner was issued an admit card by the Senior General Manager (HR) and was called to appear for the written test. The written examination was conducted on 02.04.2023, in which the petitioner appeared. Candidates who qualified in the written test were called for the interview scheduled on 22.05.2023. Page 3 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 However, citing certain technical errors in the selection process, the promotion process initiated pursuant to the order dated 31.12.2022 was cancelled, with an observation that a fresh selection process would commence on or before 11.12.2023. (ix) Accordingly, fresh applications were invited from intending candidates for promotion on 08.12.2023. The eligibility conditions specified in the notice dated 08.12.2023 were, for the most part, identical to those contained in the earlier order dated 31.12.2022. (x) Upon scrutiny of the application forms, a provisional list of shortlisted candidates was published by Opposite Party No. 2 vide Notice No. 4480 dated 02.07.2024, wherein the name of the petitioner was not included, despite his having applied in the prescribed form and manner. The notice stated that, apart from the 41 shortlisted candidates, all other applicants were debarred from the selection process on the basis of five stipulated grounds. As understood by the petitioner, his candidature was rejected solely on the ground that he had not completed the diploma course prior to his initial joining in service. (xi) Aggrieved by the exclusion of his name from the shortlist, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 17404 of 2024 before this Court. Upon consideration of the facts involved and the nature of the grievance
Decision
raised, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the competent authority to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner. Page 4 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 (xii) Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Opposite Party No. 2 considered the petitioner’s representation but ultimately rejected his claim for promotion. The rejection was on the ground that the petitioner had completed his diploma course after joining the service. It was stated that, as per records submitted and verified from SCTE & VT, the petitioner had joined the service under TPCODL (erstwhile CESU) on 25.05.2012, whereas the result of his diploma course was published on 26.06.2012, i.e., after his joining CESU. (xiii) Finding no alternative or efficacious remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking its intervention. II. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS: 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions. (i) The petitioner submitted that his candidature was rejected solely on the ground that he had not completed his diploma course prior to joining service. He contended that this is factually incorrect, as the record establishes that he had completed the diploma course before joining CESU as a Junior Artisan Trainee. Having fulfilled all eligibility conditions, he asserted that he ought not to have been debarred from consideration for promotion to the post of Junior Manager (Electrical). (ii) The petitioner contended that the Notice dated 02.07.2024 is illegal, arbitrary, and reflects non-application of mind. The impugned action is hit by the doctrine of estoppel, since he was earlier shortlisted and allowed to appear in the written test under the advertisement dated Page 5 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 31.12.2022 on the same set of facts and documents. The authorities cannot now adopt a contrary stand and are estopped from debarring him. While promotion may not be a right, the right to be considered is fundamental, and its denial under the notice dated 08.12.2023 is illegal and discriminatory. (iii) The petitioner further submitted that the notice dated 08.12.2023 merely requires completion of the diploma course prior to joining CESU, not publication of the result. There is a clear distinction between course completion and result publication, and the course completion certificate issued by the institute confirms that he completed the course before joining. Hence, rejection of his candidature on that basis is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. (iv) The petitioner contended that the one-time promotion opportunity was his only chance to advance and that he was clearly eligible, with no overlapping period of service and diploma studies that could disqualify him. (v) In support of his claim, the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Debendra Sahu v. State of Orissa & Ors.1, where Diploma Engineers who had joined CESU service while pursuing their Degree courses were held entitled to be considered under the 5% Graduate Engineer quota. He submitted that his case stands on even stronger footing and that the denial of promotion is illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory. 1 W.P.(C) No. 18711 of 2019. Page 6 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 (vi) The petitioner submitted that he had earlier filed W.P.(C) No. 17404 of 2024 challenging the stipulations in the order dated 08.12.2023 and the notice dated 02.07.2024. This Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to consider his representation. However, Opposite Party No. 2 rejected his claim without proper application of mind or verification of records, erroneously concluding that he completed the diploma after joining service. The said finding in Order No. 5632 dated 21.08.2024 is, he asserted, contrary to the record and unsustainable in law. (vii) The petitioner contended that appearance in the examination and publication of results are governed by the Board and are distinct from course completion, which is determined by the institute. It is undisputed, he submitted, that he completed the course before joining CESU. (viii) The petitioner further stated that he appeared for the examination while on sanctioned leave, and no illegality can be attributed to him on that ground. The impugned order dated 21.08.2024, he contended, is per se illegal and suffers from complete non-application of mind. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) An internal circular, Notification No. TPCODL/HR/7300 dated 08.12.2023, was issued for selection to the post of Junior Manager (Electrical) from eligible non-executive employees in the Technical cadre holding a Diploma or Degree in Electrical Engineering. It Page 7 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 specifically required candidates to have completed the Diploma prior to joining TPCODL (erstwhile CESU). However, as per verification by SCTE & VT, the petitioner joined CESU on 25.05.2012, while his Diploma result was published on 06.06.2012. Since the qualification was not completed before entry into service, his candidature was rightly rejected. (ii) The petitioner’s reliance on Debendra Sahu (supra) is misplaced, as the facts are clearly distinguishable. In that case, the candidates had completed their Degree in Electrical Engineering before joining CESU and sought promotion under the 5% quota governed by the GRIDCO Officers Promotion Policy. In contrast, the petitioner had not completed his Diploma before joining CESU and belongs to a different cadre to which the GRIDCO policy does not apply. Therefore, the cited judgment does not support his claim. (iii) The promotion process initiated under the advertisement dated 31.12.2022 for the post of Junior Manager (Electrical) was cancelled due to procedural gaps, as notified vide Office Order No. 7124 dated 30.11.2023. Accordingly, the petitioner’s earlier shortlisting confers no right to be considered under the fresh process initiated through Advertisement No. TPCODL/HR/7300 dated 08.12.2023. IV. EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL MATRIX: 6. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the materials placed on record. 7. Before proceeding to examine the rival contentions, it is apposite to reiterate the limited scope of judicial review in matters concerning Page 8 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 recruitment and promotion. The Court does not sit in appeal over the employer’s policy decisions, particularly in matters of eligibility or promotion, unless such decisions are manifestly arbitrary, irrational, or violative of constitutional mandates. 8. In Union of India v. Uzair Imran2, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of interference by courts in such matters in the following terms: “14. …It is entirely the prerogative of the employer, after applications are received from interested candidates or names of registered candidates are sponsored by the Employment Exchanges for public employment, to decide whether any such candidate intending to participate in the selection process is eligible in terms of the statutorily prescribed rules for appointment and also as to whether he ought to be allowed to enter the zone of consideration, i.e., to participate in the selection process. It is only when evidence of a sterling quality is produced before the court which, without much argument or deep scrutiny, tilts the balance in favour of one party that the court could decide either way based on acceptance of such evidence.” 9. While promotion is not a fundamental right, the right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules is well recognised and flows from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This principle has been consistently upheld by the constitutional courts. 10. The Supreme court in the case of Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd and Others vs. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Others3 observed: 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308. 3 (1991) 2 SCC 295 Page 9 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 “4. There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with the relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of the respondent/writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent/writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.” 11. In the same vein, in H.M. Singh v. Union of India,4 the Supreme Court reiterated that the right to be considered for promotion is a facet of Articles 14 and 16. Similarly in Ajay Kumar Shukla vs Arvind Rai5 the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that right to be considered for promotion and not right to promotion is a fundamental right. 12. It is also a settled legal position that no employee can claim promotion as a matter of right. The Constitution does not prescribe a method for filling promotional posts, leaving it to the employer to frame rules regarding eligibility and selection based on organisational requirements. Judicial interference is warranted only where such policies are ex facie discriminatory or violative of constitutional guarantees. 13. Another critical issue that arises for determination in the present case is whether the petitioner had acquired the requisite educational qualification, namely a Diploma in Electrical Engineering, prior to entering service. Specifically, the question is whether "completion of the course" refers to the conclusion of academic instruction and