The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.37846 of 2020 Prasanna Kumar Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. Biswabihari Mohanty, Advocate State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties -versus-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Jayant Kumar Bal, AGA Mr. Sangram Mishra, Advocate (for Opposite Party No.4) Mr. Prasanta Kumar Mohanty, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.5) CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 22.10.2025 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner files written notes of submission in the Court, which be kept on record. 3. The present writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner with the following prayers: “PRAYER Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in appropriate nature to quash the impugned selection made by the selection committee under Rule 4(b) of ORS (Recruitment) Rules 2011 for the Recruitment Year 2019 in pursuance of the Requisition dated 01.10.2019 and the Consequential Promotion made in favour of Respondent No.4 & 5 by Notification dated 13.07.2020 ignoring the rightful Page 1 of 5 Order No. 11. claim of the petitioner who has better merit in comparison to Opp. Party No.4 & 5 and/or in the alternative this Hon’ble Court may be pleased further to direct the Respondents to Promote the Petitioner retrospectively from the date of Promotion of his Juniors under Annexure-3 with grant of all consequential benefits both service and financial retrospectively in ORS And pass any order/orders, direction/direction as this Hon’ble Court thinks fit and proper. And for which act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” (Emphasis supplied) 4. Pursuant to order dated 16.09.2025, Mr. Bal, learned AGA, who represents the State-Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3, submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition, so also the prayer made therein are squarely covered by the ratio decided in the judgment dated 31.03.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.25821 of 2022 and batch (Aruna Kumar Padhy Vs. State of Odisha and others). 5. Paragraph Nos.35 to 37 of the Judgment in Aruna Kumar Padhy (supra), being relevant, are reproduced below. “35. On a careful analysis of such observation made by the RDC(S.D.), Berhampur, it appears that the petitioner was not given promotion to ORS Group-B Cadre and his representation was rejected by the Opposite Parties on the ground that the CCR of the petitioner in the year 2015- 2016 contains a remark “Very Good”. Hence, the authorities, after considering such CCR of the petitioner, did not consider his case for promotion. Therefore, such remark has been used to the disadvantage of the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioners are seriously prejudiced. At this juncture, by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt case (supra) as well as in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar case Page 2 of 5 to (supra), (supra) to the effect that such entries should have been communicated to the employee concerned. Further in para-4 of the judgment in Abhijhit Ghosh Dastidar case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that where for promotion the benchmark of “Very Good” is required and admittedly, the entry of “Good” was not communicated to the Government employee, therefore, the entry “Good” should have been communicated the concerned Government employee as he was having “Very Good” for the previous years. Further, it was held that non- communication of the entry “Good” to the public servant has civil consequence because such entry in CCR has affect chances for promotion and to get other service and financial benefits. Hence, the said non-communication would be arbitrary and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such view of the matter this Court has no hesitation to hold that the entry in CCR of the petitioner in respect of the year 2015-2016 as “Very Good” is adverse entry as the same has created obstacle in considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of ORS Group-B. Accordingly, the 1st question is answered. 36. So far the 2nd question formulated by this Court in para-19 of this judgment is concerned, i.e. whether the remark “Very Good” in CCR of the petitioner for the relevant year was required to be communicated to the petitioner by providing the petitioner a opportunity representation against such remark. Since this Court has categorically held that the remark “Very Good”, in the case of the petitioner to be an adverse is concerned. Therefore, by applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred the considered view that the Opposite Parties should have communicated such remakrs in the CCR for the year 2015-2016 to the Petitioner and an opportunity should have been provided to the the petitioner remark, so this Court judgments, to make is of far an Page 3 of 5 petitioner to make a representation against such remark. Therefore, the question no.2 is answered in the affirmative. 37. The next question that falls for consideration by this Court is as to whether petitioner is entitled to any relief in the facts and circumstances of the present case? In view of the analysis of law made hereinabove and further keeping in view the answer to question nos.1 and 2, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order dated 14.09.2022 under Annexure-11 is unsustainable in law and accordingly, the same is required to be quashed and hereby quashed. The Opposite Parties are directed to convene a review DPC meeting to re-assess the suitability of the petitioner for promotion to the post of ORS Group-B Cadre and while doing so, the adverse entry in the CCR of the petitioner in respect of the year 2015-2016 be excluded. In the event the petitioner is found otherwise suitable by taking into consideration equal number of immediate preceding years CCR of the petitioner, he shall be given promotion to the post of ORS Group-B Cadre with effect from the date his batch-mates were given promotion to ORS Group-B Cadre. It is needless to direct here that all service and financial benefits be extended in favour of the petitioner by taking into consideration the date of promotion of the petitioner to ORS Group-B Cadre from date on which the batch-mates the petitioners were promoted. The Opposite Parties are directed to complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the judgment.” of (Emphasis supplied) 6. Hence, recording the concession made by the learned State Counsel, the Opposite Parties are directed to convene a review DPC meeting to re-assess the suitability of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of ORS Group-B cadre Page 4 of 5 for the Recruitment Year, 2019. 7. It is made clear that, in the event the Petitioner is found otherwise suitable by taking into consideration the equal number of immediate preceding years’ CCR of the Petitioner, he shall be given promotion to the post of ORS Group-B Cadre with effect from the date his batch-mates were given promotion to ORS Group-B Cadre. 8. Needless to mention here that, if the Petitioner’s case is considered for promotion, all service and financial benefits shall be extended in favour of the Petitioner by taking into consideration the date of promotion of the Petitioner to ORS Group-B Cadre from date on which the batch-mates of the Petitioner were promoted i.e., 13.07.2020. 9. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, the Petitioner is going to retire in January, 2026. Hence, the Opposite Parties are directed to complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 10. It is made clear that the relief, if any, granted in favour of the Petitioner shall not affect the inter se seniority of Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in the ORS Group-B Cadre. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 12. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. Kanhu (S. K. MISHRA) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KANHU BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 24-Oct-2025 19:39:03 Page 5 of 5