The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.31411 of 2023 (This is an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Minati Sahoo …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner For Opp. Parties : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. M.K.Rath, Advocate Mr. P.C.Das, Additional Standing Counsel JUDGMENT Date of hearing : 13.02.2024 Date of Judgment : 13.02.2024 A.K. Mohapatra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr.V.Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for private Opposite Party Nos. 5 & 6 and Mr.P.C.Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the pleadings of the parties and documents annexed thereto. 2. The factual background of the Writ Petition leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition in a nutshell, is that the Petitioner belongs to SEBC category and she was duly selected in a valid recruitment process conducted for appointment to the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector (ARI) vide order dated 19.07.2012. // 2 // Thereafter the Petitioner joined in service on 27.07.2012 in Odogaon Tahasil of Nayagarh district. While the Petitioner was continuing, she appeared in the departmental examination on 19.10.2016 and completed the ARI training successfully in the year 2020. 3. While the matter stood thus, in the year 2022 a gradation list of ARI of Nayagarh district was published on 01.12.2022. In the said gradation list the Petitioner was placed at Sl.No.4 whereas name of the the private Opposite party Nos. 5 & 6 have been shown at Sl.Nos.10 & 17 respectively of the said gradation list. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the next promotion from the post of ARI is to the post of R.I. and such promotion is to be governed under Rule 11 of the Orissa District Revenue Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983. By referring to Rules of the year 1983, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner satisfies all the eligibility criteria as required under the said Rules. As such the Petitioner is eligible to be promoted to the post of R.I along with other similarly placed eligible candidates. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that recently a DPC was convened to give promotion from the post of ARI to the post of R.I.. In the said DPC, the case of the Officers juniors to the Petitioner have been considered including the private Opposite Party Nos. 5 & 6, however, the case of the Petitioner was not considered for such promotion although she satisfies all the eligibility criteria as is required under the Rules. He further contended that the petitioner came to learn that the case of the Petitioner was not considered by the DPC, as her annual property // 3 // statement has not been uploaded in the HRMS portal of the State Government. It is further contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was on maternity leave from June, 2022 to December, 2022. Therefore, she could not upload the annual property statement to the HRMS portal. 5. The HRMS portal was closed after the due date, therefore, she could not upload her annual property statement. Accordingly the Petitioner approached the Tahsildar, Odagaon on 30.06.2020 with a request to accept the hard copy of her annual property statement. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that pursuant to the letter of the A.D.M., Nayagarh dated 09.08.2023, the Tahsildar, Odagaon permitted the Petitioner to submit her annual property statement along with two other similarly placed persons for necessary consideration. Despite such submission of hard copy of annual property statement, the case of the Petitioner was not considered by the DPC although the D.P.C. considered the case of the private Opposite Party Nos. 5 & 6, who are much junior to the Petitioner and they have been given promotion in the meantime. Being aggrieved by such illegal action of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 6. In course of his submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the order passed by this Court in Rakesh Ranjan Sethi- vrs.State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) no.40054 of 2023 which was disposed of on 11.12.2023. By referring to the said order in Rakesh Ranjan Sethi,(supra) learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that this Court after analysis of the facts granted the Petitioner an opportunity to submit annual property statement either // 4 // through web portal or by submitting the hard copy of annual property statement before the Opposite Parties within a stipulated period of time. The Opposite parties were also directed to accept such copy of Annual Property Statement either through off line or on line mode and they were further directed to convene a Review DPC to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of R.I. from the date his juniors were given such promotion to the post of R.I. Of- course such direction was given subject to the Petitioner eligibility and satisfying the condition laid down in the Rule. 6. Mr.Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private Opposite parties No. 5 & 6 submitted that the petitioner is no way aggrieved by the promotion of Opposite Party No.6. So far the private Opposite Party Nos. 5 & 6 are concerned, the petitioner was in the Sl.no.4 of the gradation list. Since the case of the Petitioner was not considered for non-submission of annual property statement, the case of Opposite Party No.5 has been considered and he has been given promotion to the post of R.I. in the meantime. He further contended that for the negligence on the part of the Petitioner she has suffered and consequential benefit which had accrued in favour of the Opposite Parties cannot be taken away subsequently. The private opposite Parties No.5 & 6 were found eligible by the DPC, accordingly they have been given promotion. Further, it is contended that since Opposite Party no.5 have no fault and a such they have been duly considered by the DPC for promotion. In course of his argument, he also submitted that several R.I. posts are still lying vacant. 8. Leaned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State // 5 // took a stand that no fault can be found with the State-Opposite Parties. Since submission of annual property statement is a mandatory requirement, the Petitioner having not submitted the same through the HRMS web portal, the case of the petitioner was not sent to the DPC for consideration. The D.P.C. while considering the case of the candidates who are eligible for such promotion, has granted promotion to the candidates who were found eligible in terms of the Rules. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the right which has accrued in favour of the Opposite Parties No. 5 & 6 cannot take away subsequently as such the Opposite parties were found eligible by the D.P.C. Accordingly, they have been given promotion. In such view of the matter learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, after careful examination of the background facts as well as the materials on record and, further keeping in view the principle laid down by this Court in Rakesh Ranjan Sethi’s case (supra), this Court observes that so far the present Petitioner is concerned, she has a genuine reason to the effect that at the relevant point of time she was on maternity leave and as such she could not upload her annual property statement. This Court is of the considered view that merely because the annual property statement was not uploaded in the web portal, the Opposite Parties could not have ignored the case of the Petitioner by not sending the same to DPC. Furthermore, on record, no such document was found whereby the Petitioner was asked to upload such annual property statement. Without putting the Petitioner on notice with regard to a fact which might affect her career // 6 // eventually, the Opposite Parties have not taken any steps and as a result where the Petitioner has been virtually superseded by her juniors. This Court does not approve of the method that has been followed by the Opposite Parties. In the aforesaid background, this Court by following the principle laid down in the Rakesh Ranjan Sethi’s case (supra) deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the Opposite Parties to immediately convene a review DPC. Considering the factual aspects of the case of the Petitioner by not forwarding to review DPC the annual property statement already submitted by the Petitioner before the Tahsildar, Odagaon. Therefore, the case of the Petitioner deserves to be considered in accordance with law against the vacant post of R.I. This Court further directs that the private Opposite Party No.5 be adjusted against the vacant post and as such he shall not be disturbed while considering the case of the Petitioner. The Opposite Parties are further directed to ensure that the seniority of the Petitioner as has been indicated in the gradation list under Annexure-1 be retained while carrying out the aforesaid exercise. The entire exercise be carried out within six weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this judgment to the Opposite Parties. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed in terms of the above noted order. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 13th of February, 2024/RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 04-Mar-2024 20:10:37