The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.30465 of 2022 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Sumatee Pradhan & Ors. …. Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. M.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. S.K. Pal, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. A. Pati, ASC PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Date of Hearing:02.09.2025 and Date of Judgment:02.09.2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. // 2 // 3. It is contended that the Petitioners were all engaged as Special Police Officers (S.T Youth) vide orders of appointment issued under Annexure-10- Series. Subsequently, while so continuing in terms of the Resolution issued on dtd.16.10.2012 under Annexure-3, all the Petitioners were absorbed in Odisha Auxiliary Police Force in the year 2014. 4.
Legal Reasoning
14. This Court in State of Tripura v. K.K. Roy [(2004) 9 SCC 65 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 651] , upon taking into consideration some of the earlier decisions of this Court, held: (SCC pp. 67-68, para 6) “6. It is not a case where there existed an avenue for promotion. It is also not a case where the State intended to make amendments in the promotional policy. The appellant being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution should have created promotional avenues for the respondent having regard to its constitutional obligations adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Despite its constitutional obligations, the State cannot take a stand that as the respondent herein accepted the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment knowing fully well that there was no avenue for promotion, he cannot resile therefrom. It is not a case where the principles of estoppel or waiver should be applied having regard to the constitutional functions of the State. It is not disputed that the other States in India/Union of India having regard to the recommendations made in this behalf by the Pay Commission introduced the Scheme of Assured Career Promotion in terms whereof the incumbent of a post if not promoted within a period of 12 years is granted one higher scale of pay and another upon completion of 24 years if in the meanwhile he had not been promoted despite existence of promotional avenues. When questioned, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Page 6 of 8 // 7 // the appellant, even could not point out that the State of Tripura has introduced such a scheme. We wonder as to why such a scheme was not introduced by the appellant like the other States in India, and what impeded it from doing so. Promotion being a condition of service and having regard to the requirements thereof as has been pointed out by this Court in the decisions referred to hereinbefore, it was expected that the appellant should have followed the said principle.” 4.5. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction be issued to Opp. Party No. 1 to frame the cadre Rule and create promotional avenue for the Petitioners and similarly situated Odisha Auxiliary Police Force. 5. Mr. A. Pati, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that since the Petitioners are absorbed as Odisha Auxiliary Police Force in terms of Resolution dtd.16.10.2012, their prayer to treat them as Constables working in Odisha State Police and to grant all service benefits at par with regular constables including promotion is not at all entertainable and the same has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order. 5.1. However, it is fairly contended that no such promotional avenue is available for the Petitioners and similarly situated Odisha Auxiliary Police Force. Page 7 of 8 // 8 // 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and while not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dtd.20.08.2022, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to consider the claim of the present Petitioners and similarly situated Odisha Auxiliary Police Force for creation of promotional avenues for them with framing of the cadre Rule. This Court observes that while taking such a decision relevancy and effect of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Food Corporation of India as cited (supra) be taken into consideration. This Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision as directed within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. Not only that, while taking such decision, relevancy and effect of the provisions contained under Para-8.3 of Resolution dtd.16.10.2012 and Para-5 of the letter of appointment be taken into consideration.
Arguments
It is contended that even though Petitioners are continuing as against such newly created post of Odisha Auxiliary Police Force, but no such promotional avenue has been created for them, nor any cadre rule has been framed for such Police Force. 4.1. Since after joining as against the post in question i.e. Odisha Auxiliary Police Force, Petitioners found that there is no promotional avenue available for them, they made a claim to absorb them as Police Constables under the Odisha State Police. This Court when directed for consideration of such claim, the same has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.20.08.2022 under Annexure-9. 4.2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners however fairly contended that if some promotional avenues will be created for the present Petitioners and similarly situated Odisha Auxiliary Page 2 of 8 // 3 // Police Force, Petitioners will not raise any claim for their absorption as Constable under Odisha State Police. 4.3. It is also contended that as provided under Para-8.3 of the Resolution dtd.16.10.2012 under Annexure-3 and Para-5 of the order of engagement issued under Annexure-10-Series, Petitioners are eligible to get the benefit of promotion as is being given to Constables working in Odisha State Police. Para-8.3 of the Resolution and Para-5 of the Order of engagement reads as follows:- “8.3.(a). Every member of the Force shall be paid the scale of pay and allowances and other entitlements and service benefits as are admissible to a Police Constable/Sepoy. They will also be governed by the same service conditions as applicable to a police Constable/Sepoy. (b). Government may from time to time prescribe other conditions of service for the members of the Force as deemed proper. (c) As regards the satisfactory completion of three years of service by the Special Police Officers to be eligible for absorption in the Odisha Auxiliary Police Force, the concerned certify that the person concerned has been recruited and trained as District Superintendent w per the Govt. Resolution 0.47958/D&A dated 25.10.2008 and has completed three years of service satisfactorily” 5. On completion of a period of three years of satisfactory contractual service you may be absorbed on regular post against scheduled tribe vacancies of constable and sepoy or equivalent rank in Orissa Police. You are directed to join in your duty w.e.f. 01.05.2010 at Reserve Office, Deogarh”. Page 3 of 8 // 4 // 4.4. It is also contended that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Food Corporation of India & Ors. vs. Parashotam Das Bansal & Ors., reported in (2008) 5 SCC-100, promotional avenue is required to be created. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 9 to 14 has held as follows:- “9. The appellant is “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. An employee of a State although has no fundamental right of promotion, it has a right to be considered therefor. What is necessary is to provide an opportunity of advancement; promotion being a normal incidence of service. 10. This Court in O.Z. Hussain (Dr.) v. Union of India [1990 Supp SCC 688 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 649 : (1991) 16 ATC 521] opined: (SCC pp. 691-92, para 7) “7. This Court, has on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the non- medical „A‟ Group scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers. It is, therefore, necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be framed within four months from now providing promotional avenue for the „A‟ Page 4 of 8 // 5 // category scientists in the non-medical wing of the Directorate.” 11. The question also came up for consideration in Ujagar Prints (III) v. Union of India [(1989) 3 SCC 531 : 1989 SCC (Tax) 512 : AIR 1989 SC 972] and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K.G.S. Bhatt [(1989) 4 SCC 635 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 45 : (1989) 11 ATC 880] . In the latter decision, this Court held: (SCC pp. 638-39, para 9) “9. … It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organisation public or private does not „hire a hand‟ but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organisation. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. (See Principles of Personnel Management by Flipo Edwin B., 4th Edn., p. 246.) Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward. „The organisation that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion is bound to pay a severe penalty in terms of administrative costs, misallocation of personnel, low morale, and ineffectual performance, among both non-managerial employees and their supervisors.‟ (See Personnel Management by Dr. Udai Pareek, p. 277.) There cannot be any modern management much less any career planning, manpower development, management development, etc. which is not related to a system of promotions.” 12. When employees are denied an opportunity of promotion for long years (in this case 30 years) on the ground that they fell within a category of employees excluded from promotional prospect, the superior court will have the jurisdiction to issue necessary direction. Page 5 of 8 // 6 // 13. If there is no channel of promotion in respect of a particular group of officers resulting in stagnation over the years, the court although may not issue any direction as to in which manner a scheme should be formulated or by reason thereof interfere with the operation of existing channel of promotion to the officers working in different departments and officers of the Government but the jurisdiction to issue direction to make a scheme cannot be denied to a superior court of the country.
Decision
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 2nd Septembe, 2025/Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 09-Sep-2025 15:59:39 Page 8 of 8