The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC (OAC ) No.1130 of 2019 Prasant Kumar Panda .... Petitioner Dr. J.K. Lenka, Adv. State of Odisha & Others -versus- ..... CORAM: Opp. Parties Mr. S.P. Panda, ASC THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 11.11.2024 Order No.6 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. This Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer. (i) (ii) (iii) at Serial No.77 Quash the final gradation list dt.28.02.2019 at Annexure-10 so far as the position of the applicant is concerned. is entitled to Declare that the applicant seniority per as recommendation of review DPC dt.19.08.2015 and 16.01.2016 and at Sl.No.68 in the final gradation list. Declare that the applicant being promote of 2011 recruit of ORS Group-B is entitled to seniority over selection recuit and Direct Promote recruitees of 2011 be placed above as per Rule 21 (2)(b) at Annexure-1. (iv) Direct the Respondents to fix the pay of the applicant notionally w.e.f 25.06.2013 and grant all consequential benefits with seniority as directed by this Hon’ble Tribunal as per order dated 07.08.2013 at Annexure-2 and recommendation of review DPC dated 19.08.2015 and 06.01.2016 respectively. 4. It is contended that Petitioner in spite of his eligibility when was not extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of ORS Group-B and his juniors got the said benefit, Petitioner being aggrieved, approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1834 of 2013. The Tribunal vide order dt.08.12.2014 under Annexure-4 disposed of the matter inter alia with the following direction. 7. Respondents No.1 and 2 in their counter have stated that the name of the applicant was not recommended for consideration as he does not have five outstanding C.C.Rs. The Rule nowhere prescribed for recommending names of the employee who possess five outstanding C.C.Rs. ON the other hand recommendation is to be sent only in respect of the persons who fulfilled the criteria as per sub-rule-(1)(a) of Rule 6. That being the only eligibility criteria there is no reason why the name of the applicant was withheld. ON the other hand it appears from the C.C.R of the applicant that during the proceeding five years, he had earned four outstanding C.C.Rs. During the year 2005-06 though he has been rated as ‘very good’, yet the general remarks speaks volume about his conduct and performance. From these entries in the C.C.Rs one must be apprehensive as to why the applicant shall not be considered as employee of “outstanding merit”. Over and above, while considering the Selection Committee took decision to consider the cases of those “three outstanding” C.C.Rs during the last five years preceding the year of recruitment for promotion. If the name of the applicant would have been recommended, there was every possibility that his case must have received positive response. employees who the promotion, possessed 4.1. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal, a review DPC was held and the Review DPC in its proceeding dt.19.08.2015 held the Petitioner eligible to get the benefit of promotion in respect of 2011 Recruitment Year and the Review DPC further recommended that the seniority of the petitioner be placed in between Sl. No.70 & 80 of such ORS Group-B employees. 4.2. It is contended that basing on similar order passed by the Tribunal in respect of another case , the Review DPC in its proceeding dt.06.01.2016 under Annexure-6 while considering the entitlement of the applicant therein held the Petitioner’s seniority to be placed at Sl. No.77 vide Annexure-6. 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner does not have any reservation with regard to the recommendation made by the Review DPC under Annexure-6 in giving placement to the Petitioner at Sl. No.77. But while publishing the impugned final Gradation list of ORS Group-B on 18.02.2019 under Annexure-10 Petitioner was wrongly placed at Sl. No.251. 4.4. It is contended that in view of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-4, while considering the claim of the Petitioner since the Petitioner was found eligible to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of ORS Group-B in respect of the Recruitment Year 2011 and the Review DPC in its proceeding under Annexure-5 held the Petitioner to be placed in between Sl. No.70 & 80 and subsequently while considering the claim of another applicant, the Review DPC in its proceeding under Annexure-6 clearly held the position of the Petitioner to be placed at Sl. No.77, in the final impugned Gradation list published under Annexure-10, Petitioner could not have been placed at Sl. No.251. 4.5. It is contended that on the face of the recommendation made by the DPC under Annexures- 5 & 6 and the observation indicated in the impugned Gradation list showing the Petitioner to have been promoted as against Recruitment Year 2011, Petitioner should have been placed in between 70 & 80 or specifically at Sl. No.77 as recommended by the D.P.C. But the Petitioner was wrongly placed at Sl. No.251 which is not just and correct. It is accordingly contended that the placement of the Petitioner at Sl. No.251 in the impugned Gradation list of ORS Group- B needs interference of this Court. 5. Mr. S.P. Panda, learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand basing on the materials available on record contended that basing on the recommendation made by the Review D.P.C under Annexures-5 & 6, Petitioner got the benefit of promotion as against Recruitment Year 2011 and if he has not been placed as recommended by the D.P.C in its proceeding under Annexure-6, let the Petitioner make an appropriate application for consideration of his placement in the appropriate place basing on the recommendation made under Annexure-6 before Opp. Party No.1 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court while deposing the Writ Petition grants liberty to the Petitioner to make a detailed application before Opp. Party No.1 for consideration of his grievance as made in the present Writ Petition with regard to his placement in the Gradation list of ORS Group-B Officer. 6.1. It is observed that if any such application is filed within a period of two (2) weeks hence, Opp. Party No.1 shall do well to consider and dispose of the same within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. 6.2. It is further observed that while taking such a decision relevancy and effect of the recommendation issued by the Review DPC under Annexures-5 & 6 shall be taken into consideration in its proper perspective. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Contd……. Order No.7 I.A. No.90 of 2024 1. Heard. 2. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, learned counsel for the Petitioner does not want to press the I.A. 3. I.A accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 14-Nov-2024 12:05:46