(Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) AFR Sanjay Kumar v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC (OA) No. 363 of 2019 (Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) AFR Sanjay Kumar Perei & Others …… Petitioners --------------- - Versus - State of Odisha & Others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case :- ________________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Rajib Rath, Advocate. For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Addl. Government Advocate [For O.P Nos. 1 & 2] M/s. P.C. Acharya & S.K. Parida, Advocates [For O.P. Nos.3 to 8] ___________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 31st October, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ application is, whether senior reserved category employees can be denied promotion to the higher post under unreserved category ignoring their seniority. Page 1 of 25 FACTS 2. Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3, at the time of filing of the writ application were serving as Asst. Revenue Inspectors (ARI) while petitioner Nos.4 and 5 were serving as Amins. All of them were posted in different Tahasils of Keonjhar District. Petitioner No.1 and 3 belong to the SC category, while petitioner Nos. 2, 4 & 5 belong to the ST category. Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 entered into Government service as ARI on 09.11.2009, 13.11.2009 and 05.11.2009 respectively. Petitioner Nos.4 & 5 entered into Government service as Amins on 13.11.2009 and 16.11.2009 respectively. 3. The Collector, Keonjhar vide letter dated 06.09.2018 published draft gradation list as on 31.07.2018 in respect of Revenue Supervisors, Revenue Inspectors, Asst. Revenue Inspectors and Amins. In the draft gradation list of ARIs, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were placed at serial Nos. 1, 2 and 5 respectively and petitioner Nos. 4 & 5 were placed at serial nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the draft gradation list of Amins. All the petitioners have passed departmental Page 2 of 25 examination and have completed five years of service in their respective posts. As such, they claim to be eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector taking into account their seniority as per Rule-11 of the Orissa District Revenue Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983 (in short, “the ODRS Rules, 1983”). 4. By letter dated 16.08.2018, the Collector, Keonjhar sought clarification from the Government as to whether the employees belonging to the reserved categories could be considered for promotion to the post of Revenue Supervisor and Revenue Inspector in the UR category in view of excess representation of the reserved category employees. In response, the Government in Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, vide letter dated 11.01.2019 clarified that post-based reservation policy is being followed pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagaraj v. Union of India1, wherein it was held that specific slots are to be earmarked for specific category of candidates. As such, excess number of reserved category candidates 1 (2006) 8 SCC 212 Page 3 of 25 having been employed in their prescribed slots over and above the limit, their cases for promotion against the posts earmarked for UR category cannot be considered. 5. Pursuant to such clarification of the Government, the Collector by order dated 17.01.2019 constituted a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to be held on 18.01.2019. On 19.01.2019, the private opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 belonging to the general category were given promotion to the rank of Revenue Inspector ignoring the seniority of the petitioners and in violation of the ODRS Rules, 1983. The Collector also directed them to be relieved from their posts for joining in the new places of posting. 6. According to the petitioners, the impugned order of promotion issued in favour of the private opposite parties is unsustainable in law because seniority of the petitioners was completely ignored. As per the gradation list, all the petitioners joined in Government service on different dates in November, 2009 whereas the private opposite parties joined in June, 2012 and January, 2013. As such, they were placed below the petitioners in the respective gradation lists. Page 4 of 25 According to the petitioners, there is no bar in law for filling up unreserved vacancies by promoting reserved category candidates, if they are more meritorious. On such facts, the petitioners approached the erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 363 of 2019, which has since been transferred to this Court and registered as WPC(OA) No. 363 of 2019. The petitioners have claimed the following relief: “In view of the facts mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, the applicant prays for the following relief(s):- (i) The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to quash the promotion order dated 19.1.2019 of private respondents as at Annexure-5 given in pursuance of the DPC recommendation dated 17.1.2019 as at Annexure- 4 and clarification letter dated 11.1.2019 issued by respondent No.1 as at Annexure-3/1 And The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the State respondents that to give promotion to the present applicants taking into account their seniority in the gradation lists of ARI/Amin as at annx-2 series by convening a review DPC with all retrospective consequential service and financial benefits. And i. The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to declared that the clarification letter dated 11.01.2019 issued by the respondent nc-1 as at Annexure-3/1 as illegal. ii. The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to pass such order/orders as is deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Collector (opposite party No.2), wherein the averments made in the Page 5 of 25 writ application relating to the date of joining of the petitioners and private opposite parties is admitted. Reference has been made to the clarification issued by the Government. It is stated that in the DPC held on 18.01.2019, the norms laid down in Government circulars, instructions and clarification dated 11.01.2019 were strictly followed. The private opposite parties, who belong to the general category, were given promotion following the post- based reservation policy. As the present petitioners do not belong to the UR category, their cases were not considered though they appear above the private opposite parties in the gradation list. On the contrary, the private opposite parties belong to the UR category and have been promoted under such category. There is thus, no illegality. 8. The Collector has also filed an additional affidavit at the time of final hearing of the case stating inter alia, that the petitioners belong to the reserved category and there being excess employees against the reserved category posts, their cases for promotion against posts earmarked for UR category were not considered. Further, the petitioners are all Page 6 of 25 beneficiaries of recruitment by special drive in 2009 and therefore, having availed relaxation at the relevant time, they cannot be treated to have been selected on merit in the feeder cadre. Denial of promotion to them therefore, is not wrong. It is also stated that the contention regarding appointment of reserved category candidates against unreserved posts is applicable to initial appointment but not with respect to promotion. 9. The private opposite parties have also filed a counter more or less adopting the stand taken by the opposite party No.2. It is admitted that the petitioners were placed above them in the gradation list but they having been appointed without facing any competition from general category candidates have to be treated as reserved category candidates, for which they cannot occupy posts meant for UR category. It is further stated that in Keonjhar district there is excess appointment of SC candidates in the post of Revenue Inspector. Therefore, such candidates cannot be promoted to the said post as it would amount to further exceeding the quota. Page 7 of 25 SUBMISSIONS 10.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Rajib Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Mr. P.C. Acharya, learned counsel for the private opposite party Nos. 3 to 8. 11. Mr. Rath would argue that the concerned authorities have acted on complete misconception and misinterpretation of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagraj (supra), inasmuch as in the said judgment, the Supreme Court merely held that the percentage of reservation fixed in respect of a particular cadre with the roster indicating the reserved points implies that the post shown against such reserved point are to be filled up from amongst the members of reserved category candidates, to which candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered. This bar placed for general category candidates is not available while considering appointments to general category posts as the same are open to all irrespective of the category to which they belong. Therefore, by restricting the so-called UR posts Page 8 of 25 to only general candidates, the authorities have not only acted in violation of the ratio decided in M. Nagaraj (supra) but also the principles underlying Articles 14 and 16(2) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Rath further cites the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India2, and Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan3 to argue that it is always open to the reserved category candidates to be considered for selection in open competition on the basis of their own merit and once they are so selected they cannot be counted against the quota reserved for them in the reserved categories. In such event, they are to be treated as unreserved candidates. Mr. Rath has also relied upon the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Lalit Kumar Nayak vs. State of Odisha4 to buttress his contention as above. Mr. Rath sums up his argument by submitting that Rule-11 of the ODRS Rules, 1983 mandates that promotion is to be given on the principle of merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority. In the instant case, though the 2 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 3 (1995) 6 SCC 684 4 W.P.(C) No. 12516 of 2020. Page 9 of 25 petitioners are admittedly senior to the private opposite parties, they were not even considered for promotion on the ground that the promotional posts available to be filled up are of unreserved category. 12. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand submits that the petitioners were initially appointed in a special recruitment drive to fill up the reserved category posts. Thus, having availed relaxation and other benefits available to reserved category candidates at the initial level, they cannot claim to be considered as unreserved candidates at the promotional level. Mr. Pattnaik further argues that even otherwise the representation of SC candidates in the promotional post of Revenue Inspector in Keonjhar District was in excess of the admissible limit of 16.25% while the total limit for ST candidates (22.5%) was completely exhausted. As such, considering the case of the petitioners would have breached the ceiling limit of 50% in matters of promotion. The petitioners not having been selected on merit in the feeder cadre cannot claim consideration on merit at the Page 10 of 25 promotional level. As regards the judgment of this Court in the case of Lalit Kumar Nayak, Mr. Pattnaik submits that the same is under challenge in an appeal being W.A. No.2395 of 2024 before the Division Bench, which is pending. Therefore, the implementation of the judgment by granting promotion to the petitioner in the said case (Lalit Kumar Nayak) must be treated as provisional and not final decision of the Government. 13. Mr. P.C. Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the private opposite parties while adopting the arguments of the State Counsel would submit that as per the ratio decided in M. Nagraj (Supra), persons are to be appointed/promoted against slots earmarked for their respective categories. There can be no deviation in such regard. In the instant case, the ST posts were all filled up, whereas four excess appointments were made in respect of SC category posts. The petitioners admittedly belong to ST/SC categories and therefore, following the ratio decided in M. Nagraj (supra) as applied and implemented by the State Government, they cannot be considered against UR posts which are meant Page 11 of 25 only for UR category. Further, the DPC was held to specifically fill up 6 vacancies in the UR category only. Mr. Acharya further contends that this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15448 of 2020 held that SC/ST candidates in that case were rightly not considered for promotion against general category posts as their slots had already been filled up. The Writ Appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 14. Before delving into the merits of the rival contentions referred above, it would be apposite to refer to some of the statutory provisions governing the field. The ODRS Rules, 1983 provides for four different cadres in the District Revenue Service. Rule-3, which is relevant, is reproduced below. “3. The service of each District shall comprise the following cadres, namely:- (a) the cadre of Revenue Supervisors; (b) the cadre of Revenue Inspectors; (c) the cadre of Amins; and (d) the cadre of Collection Moharirs: Provided that Government shall be competent to order inclusion in or exclusion from these cadres any category of posts as considered necessary.” The method of recruitment of service is governed by Rule-4. Sub-Rule (2) provides as follows:- Page 12 of 25 “(2) Recruitment to the posts in the cadre of Revenue Inspector shall be made by the following methods, namely:- (a) by direct recruitment to the extent of fifty per cent of the vacancies arising in a year in accordance with Rules 6 and 7, and (b) by promotion from the cadres of Amins and Collection Moharirs to the extent of fifty percent of the vacancies arising in a year in accordance with rule 11: that Provided if adequate number of candidates suitable for promotion are not available in a particular year the vacancies earmarked for promotion shall be filed up by direct recruitment.” Rule-11 relates to promotion to the cadre of Revenue Inspectors and reads as follows: “Promotion to the cadre of Revenue Inspectors shall be made, on the basis of merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority, from among the Amins and Collection Moharirs of the District who, on the first day of January of the year in which the Committee meets- (a) have completed at least five years of service as such and have passed (b) such Departmental examination/tests as may be prescribed from time to time; Provided that the percentage of promotion of the Amins and Collection Moharirs to the rank of Revenue Inspector shall as nearly as possible, be total strength of such proportionate the in the employees continuing on regular basis district.” to Be it noted that as per ODRS Amendment Rules, 2006, the words “Collection Moharir” has been substituted with the words “Asst. Revenue Inspector”. Page 13 of 25 15. It is thus evident that both Amins and ARIs can be promoted to the cadre of Revenue Inspector to the extent of 50% of the vacancies arising in a year. Further, such promotion shall be made on the basis of “merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority”. 16. What is the implication of the expression ‘merit- cum-suitability with due regard to seniority’ occurring in Rule-11? 17. In the case of B.V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu5, the Supreme Court held as follow: the context of Rule 5(2) of “9. The principle of “merit-cum-seniority” lays greater emphasis on merit and ability and seniority plays a less significant role. Seniority is to be given weight only when merit and ability are approximately equal. In Indian Service Service/Indian Administrative (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 which prescribed that “selection for inclusion in such list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority” Mathew, J. in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor [(1973) 2 SCC 836 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 5] has said: (SCC p. 856, para 37) Police the “[F]or inclusion in the list, merit and suitability in all respects should be the governing consideration and that seniority should play only a secondary role. It is only when merit and suitability are roughly equal that seniority will be a determining factor, or if it is not fairly possible to make an assessment inter se of the merit and suitability of two eligible candidates 5 (1998) 6 SCC 720 Page 14 of 25 and come to a firm conclusion, seniority would tilt the scale.” Similarly, Beg, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) has said: (SCC p. 851, para 22) in the relevant Rules, “22. Thus, we think that the correct view, in conformity with the plain meaning of words used is that the ‘entrance’ or ‘inclusion’ test for a place on the select list, is competitive and comparative applied to all eligible candidates and not minimal like pass marks at an examination. The Selection Committee has an unrestricted choice of the best available talent, from amongst eligible candidates, determined by reference to reasonable criteria applied in assessing the facts revealed by service records of all eligible candidates so that merit and not mere seniority is the governing factor.” 10. On the other hand, as between the two principles of seniority and merit, the criterion of “seniority-cum- merit” lays greater emphasis on seniority. In State of Mysore v. Syed Mahmood [AIR 1968 SC 1113 : (1968) 3 SCR 363 : (1970) 1 LLJ 370] while considering Rule 4(3)(b) of the Mysore State Civil Services General Recruitment Rules, 1957 which required promotion to be made by selection on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, this Court has observed that the Rule required promotion to be made by selection on the basis of “seniority subject to the fitness of the candidate to discharge the duties of the post from among persons eligible for promotion”. It was pointed out that where the promotion is based on seniority-cum-merit, the officer cannot claim promotion as a matter of right by virtue of his seniority alone and if he is found unfit to discharge the duties of the higher post, he may be passed over and an officer junior to him may be promoted.” 18. Thus, as per Rule-11, merit-cum-suitability is the primary criterion for promotion but seniority cannot be altogether ignored. This Court would not detain itself on this Page 15 of 25 point any longer for the reason that in the instant case the petitioners have not been considered at all for promotion by the DPC and hence the question of determining their merit and suitability does not arise. This takes the Court to the question whether ignoring the petitioners altogether from the zone of consideration is legally tenable? Before proceeding to answer this question, this Court deems it proper to deal with a preliminary point raised by the State Counsel as well as the counsel for the private opposite parties, namely, the petitioners having been appointed in a special recruitment drive for reserved category candidates cannot claim any further benefits. This argument can be considered only to be rejected. This is being said for the reason that there is no provision in the ODRS Rules, 1983 supporting such contention. Moreover, the Rules do not make any distinction between the source of recruitment of employees in the feeder cadre. Once a person is recruited, from whatever source, he becomes part of the cadre. In fact, this has been implicitly acknowledged by the authorities themselves by preparing a common gradation list of all employees in different cadres Page 16 of 25 irrespective of their source of recruitment. The gradation list is prepared only on the basis of date of joining of the employees and nothing else. 19. Coming back to examine the moot point involved, it is to be noted at the outset that the position that all the petitioners having been appointed in the year 2009 are senior to the private opposite parties is an admitted fact. That they were placed higher than the private opposite parties in their respective draft gradation lists is also an admitted fact. As already stated, they were not brought within the zone of consideration by the DPC for promotion to the higher post of Revenue Inspector on the ground that the posts available to be filled up belonged to the UR category. The petitioners being admittedly reserved category candidates were denied consideration because of their status as such. The Collector, Keonjhar having noted that the percentage meant for ST candidates in the promotion cadre has been exhausted and there were four excess candidates under the SC category, sought for clarification from the Government as to whether the ST and SC category Page 17 of 25 employees could be considered for promotion in UR category. In response, the Government vide letter dated 11.01.2019 issued a clarification, which is reproduced below: “GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT No. RDM- NGEB- CLRFIC-0013-2018 1499 /Dated 11 JAN 2019 From Sri Bijay Kumar Mohanty Deputy Secretary to Government To ADM, Keonjhar Sub: Clarification regarding filling up vacant posts of Revenue Supervisors and Revenue Inspectors in Keonjhar District. Sir, In inviting a reference to your letter No.1869 dtd. 16.8.2018 on the subject cited above, I am directed to say that Post-Based Reservation Policy is currently being followed in the State consequent upon the Judgment dtd-19.10.2006 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of M. Nagraj. It has further been held by Hon’ble Supreme court of India that specific slots shall be earmarked for specified categories and for dearth of a certain category candidate, those vacancies may remain unfilled. In view of the above, since excess number of reserved category candidates are there over and above their prescribed slots, their case for promotion against the posts earmarked for UR category cannot be considered. This has been concurred in by ST & SC Development Department. Deputy Secretary to Government” Yours faithfully, Sd/- Page 18 of 25 Thus, purportedly relying upon the ratio decided in M. Nagraj (supra), a decision was taken to deprive the petitioners from the zone of consideration. It, therefore, becomes important to examine as to what was decided in M. Nagraj (Supra). In the said case, the Supreme Court was seized with the challenge to the constitutionality of the 77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th Constitutional amendment. It was clarified that reservation cannot exceed 50% ceiling under any circumstances. It was also held that the cadre strength as a unit has to be applied in the operation of the roster in order to ascertain whether a given class/group is adequately represented in the service. Each point in the roster indicates a post which on falling vacant has to be filled up by the particular category of candidate to be appointed against it and any subsequent vacancy has to be filled up by that category candidate alone. For want of candidates in a particular category, the post may remain unfilled. The slot has to be filled up only by the specified category. Page 19 of 25 20. The implication of this judgment is that the slots earmarked for specific categories are to be filled up by candidates belonging to those categories alone. When the matter under consideration relates to reservation, it obviously refers to the reserved categories, namely, SC, ST and OBC. It must be kept in mind that ‘unreserved’ by itself is not a category for reservation but in any given recruitment it is the half of the posts in the cadre that remain open for all candidates irrespective of their social categories. In the case of R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab6, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held as follows: from amongst “4. When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken that the posts shown at the reserve points are to be filled the members of reserve categories and the candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered for the reserved posts. On the other hand the reserve category candidates can compete for the their non-reserve posts and appointment to the said posts their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation. Article 16(4) of the State the Constitution of Government the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any Backward Class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the Services under the State.” to make any provision India permits the event of for in 6 (1995) 2 SCC 745 Page 20 of 25 21. Same view was reiterated in the case of Virpal Singh Chauhan (supra). What the State Government has done is to treat the unreserved as a category meant for reservation of candidates not coming within the reserved social categories. This is obviously a fallacious approach as by its very nature, the word ‘unreserved’ admits of no reservation whatsoever. It does not and cannot mean that a reserved category candidate cannot vie for a post as an unreserved candidate by competing on his own merit. This was recognized by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court even earlier in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra), wherein the following was held. it “In this connection is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates.” 22. The chance to compete on merit is open to all irrespective of their social categories and cannot be denied to any candidate. This would amount to direct violation of the principles of equality enshrined under Article 14 as well as Page 21 of 25 16(4) of Constitution of India. In a recent case i.e., Union of India v. Sajib Roy7, the Supreme Court held as follows: “32. On an analysis of the aforecited cases, we summarise as follows: no Whether a reserved candidate who has availed relaxation in fees/upper age limit to participate in open competition with general candidates may be recruited against unreserved seats would depend on the facts of each case. That is to say, in the event recruitment in there is rules/employment reserved notification, candidates who have scored higher than the last selected unreserved candidate shall be entitled to migrate and be recruited against unreserved seats. However, if an embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not be permitted to migrate to general category seats.” the such embargo Be it noted that no such embargo is available in the ODRS Rules, 1983. Obviously, the clarification issued by the Government on 11.01.2019 cannot override the provisions of the ODRS Rules, 1983. 23. Coming to the judgment cited by Mr. Acharya as passed in W.P.(C) No. 15448 of 2020 and confirmed in W.A. No. 480 of 2020, a perusal of the said judgment reveals that implication of the expression “merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority” occurring in Rule-11 of the ODRS Rules does not appear to have been considered by the Court. Further, the observations of the Constitution Bench of the 7 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943 Page 22 of 25 Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra), quoted in paragraph-19 of this judgment as also the ratio decided in Virpal Singh Chauhan (supra) and Indra Sawhney (supra) as quoted in paragraph-20 of this judgment does not appear to have been considered. Therefore, in the humble view of this Court, the said judgments must be held to have been rendered per incuriam to the statutory provision as well as the position of law delineated by the Supreme Court of India in the above referred cases. This Court therefore, holds that the judgments cited by Mr. Acharya have no application to the present case. 24. Applying the ratio decided in the judgments referred to earlier to the facts of the present case vis-(cid:224)-vis Rule-11 of the ODRS Rules,1983, this Court finds not only that the petitioners were deprived from competing on merit with the other candidates, their inherent seniority in the cadre as per the gradation list was also ignored. Thus, the very principle envisaged in the Rule, i.e., merit-cum- suitability with due regard to seniority was given a Page 23 of 25 completely go-bye. Had the petitioners been so permitted and found to be less meritorious and unsuitable than the other candidates, denial of promotion would have been justified but not so in the present scenario where they were not even brought into the fray. Thus, looked at from any angle, the action of the authorities in not considering the case of the petitioners for promotion and promoting their rank juniors in the cadre amounts to gross violation of the principles of equality enshrined under the Constitution as well as Rule-11 of the ODRS Rules, 1983. The impugned order of promotion (Annexure-5) issued in favour of the private opposite parties cannot therefore, be sustained. 25. In the considered view of this Court, the question of promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector needs to be revisited by considering the merit, suitability as well seniority of all eligible candidates. CONCLUSION 26. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order under Annexure-5 is hereby quashed. It is observed that the Page 24 of 25 promotion granted to the private opposite parties was made subject to the result of this writ application (O.A.) as per order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the Tribunal. Since this Court has now quashed the order of promotion, the promotees shall be reverted to the feeder cadre. However, it is made clear that no recovery shall be effected from them towards the salary and other financial benefits drawn by them during the interregnum. The authorities are directed to convene a review DPC for promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector, by considering the inter se merit, suitability and seniority of all eligible candidates. Basing on the outcome of such review DPC, necessary orders of promotion shall be issued. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from today. ……..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 31st October, 2025/ A.K. Rana, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 18:11:58 Page 25 of 25