The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C)(OAC) No.3947 of 2017 Ranjit Kumar Giri …. Petitioner Mr. S. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. B.P. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 28.11.2023 Order No 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. S. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the circumstances it is humbly prayed therefore that the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 1801.2015 and 21.11.2017 passed by the Respondent No. 1 and 2 under Annexure-17 and 19 respectively. And further be pleased to direct the Respondents to antedate the seniority of the applicant w.e.f.22.04.2006 when his counter parts were promoted. And further be pleased to fix the seniority of the applicant above Bishnu Charan behera i.e.Sl. No. 13392 // 2 // of Jr. SES list and accordingly his seniority in Sr. SES be fixed at appropriate place; Or pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may think fit and proper. And allow this Original Application with cost.” 4. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal though the Petitioner was extended with the benefit of retrospective seniority in the rank of Jr. S.E.S. w.e.f.23.04.1999 vide order dtd.12.12.2007 under Annexure-11, but his case was not considered to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Sr. S.E.S. when persons similarly situated and continuing in the cadre of Jr. S.E.S. were so considered by the D.P.C. held on 22.04.2006. 4.1. It is contended that since Petitioner was given retrospective seniority w.e.f.23.04.1999 vide order dtd.12.12.2007, his case should have been considered by the DPC while considering the claim of similarly situated Jr. S.E.S, who were appointed subsequent to him. It is also contended that when the Petitioner has not extended with the benefit of promotion, he made an application before the Opp. Party No. 1 on 07.12.2011. As the same was not considered, Petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2217(C) of 2012. The Tribunal vide order dtd.04.10.2012 when directed Opp. Party No. 1 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.15.01.2015 under Annexure-17 inter alia on the ground that the Petitioner by the time the DPC was held on 22.04.2006 since had not completed the required 7 years of teaching experience in the cadre of Jr. S.E.S., his claim is not entertainable. After such rejection of the Petitioner’s claim vide Annexure-17 taking into account the benefit extended in favour of similarly situated Jr. S.E.S., Petitioner made a Page 2 of 5 // 3 // representation on 17.10.2017, but the same was also rejected by the Opp. Party No. 2 vide order dtd.21.11.2017 under Annexure-19. 4.2. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner’s date of appointment in the cadre of Jr. S.E.S. was taken as 23.04.1999 in terms of order passed by the Inspector of Schools, Jajpur Circle, Jajpur on 12.12.2007 under Annexure-11, Petitioner had already completed 7 years of experience in the rank of Jr. S.E.S. by the time the DPC was held on 22.04.2006. It is also contended that similarly situated person namely S. Manimala, who was appointed in Jr. S.E.S. cadre on 20.06.2000, was extended with the benefit of promotion to Sr. S.E.S. w.e.f.28.06.2007 vide order under Annexure-18. It is accordingly contended that since similarly situated Jr. S.E.S. appointed subsequent to the Petitioner have already got the benefit of promotion to Sr. S.E.S. w.e.f.28.06.2007, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get similar benefit of promotion to the rank of Sr. S.E.S.. 5. Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned AGA on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by the Opp. Party No. 3. It is contended that by the time the DPC was held on 22.04.2006 even if taking into account the date of appointment of the Petitioner in Jr. S.E.S. Cadre as 23.04.1999, Petitioner had not the required 7 years of teaching experience in the rank of Jr. S.E.S.. Accordingly, in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2217(C) of 2012, Petitioner’s claim was considered and it has been rightly rejected. It is accordingly contended that no illegality has been committed by the Opp. Party No. 1 in rejecting the Petitioner’s claim. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 6. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner on the other hand contended that the stand taken by the Petitioner with regard to extension of the benefit of promotion to the rank of Sr. S.E.S. vide Annexure-18 has not been disputed by the Opp. Party No. 3 while filing the counter affidavit. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the Petitioner’s initial date of appointment in the rank of Jr. S.E.S. was taken as 23.04.1999 vide order dtd.12.12.2007 under Annexure-11. As found from Annexure-18, similarly situated persons appointed in the rank of Jr. S.E.S. on 20.06.2000 has got the benefit of promotion to the rank of Sr. S.E.S. on 28.06.2007. 7.1. In view of such position, this Court is inclined to quash the order dtd.15.01.2015 under Annexure-17 and order dtd.21.08.2017 under Annexure-19. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 2 to consider the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of promotion by conducting a Review DPC. 7.2. It is observed that since the Petitioner’s initial date of appointment in the rank of Jr. S.E.S. has already been taken as 23.04.1999 in order dtd.12.12.2007 under Annexure-11 taking into account the benefit extended in favour of similarly situated Jr. S.E.S. w.e.f.28.06.2007, who were appointed in the rank of Jr. S.E.S. on 20.06.2000, the same shall be taken into consideration by Opp. Party No. 2 while considering the matter in the Review DPC. It is directed that such a Review DPC shall be conducted within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. On such consideration if the Petitioner is found otherwise eligible to Page 4 of 5 // 5 // get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Sr. S.E.S., consequential follow up action shall be taken within a further period of one (1) month. 8. 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: 07-Dec-2023 19:03:52 Page 5 of 5