The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.30018 of 2024 Kedar Swain ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Budhadev Routray, Senior Counsel along with Mr. Laxmi Narayan Rayatsingh, Advocate State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties -versus- Represented By Adv. – Smt. Sasmita Nayak, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 15.04.2025 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as Smt. Sasmita Nayak, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State- Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ application, issue notice to the opp. parties and upon hearing direct the opp. parties to Page 1 of 6. quash a part of the advertisement bearing No. 41039 dated 05.11.2024 under Annexure-10, wherein one UR post be filled up by giving promotion to the petitioner, for the interest of justice. And pass any other order/orders would be deem fit and proper as facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, contended that initially on 04.07.2017 the Petitioner joined as Peon in Group-D post under the Special Relief Commissioner, Odisha. While the matter stood thus, on 07.09.2023, an information was published by the office of the SRC, Odisha informing the willing Group-D employees working in the establishment to submit their application for promotion to the post of Junior Executive Assistant Grade. Accordingly, the persons who were working in Group-D posts in the office of the SRC, Odisha submitted their application including the present Petitioner. On being duly considered and selected some of the Group-D employees have been promoted to the post of Junior Executive Assistant Grade on 04.01.2024 and 31.01.2024 under Annexures-6 and 7 of the writ petition. Since the case of the Petitioner was not considered by the DPC, the Petitioner sought for information under the Right to Information Act on 08.05.2024. In reply to the Petitioner’s application, the Under Secretary to Government-cum-P.I.O., Home Department, Government of Odisha, vide his letter dated 24.06.2024, provided the relevant information. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner further referring to the Page 2 of 6. Memorandum under Annexure-8, which has been obtained under the Right to Information Act, submitted that although the case of the Petitioner was considered by the DPC, however due to non-availability of vacancy in UR Category his case was not considered. He further submitted that the Additional Secretary to Government of Odisha in Home Department, vide Memorandum dated 19.01.2024, has categorically observed in the said Memorandum that since two vacancies were available in the UR Category, the case of the Petitioner could not be considered and further it has been observed that the case of the Petitioner may be recommended for promotion whenever one UR vacancy will be made available. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that in the meantime a vacancy has been arisen in one of the post of Junior Executive Assistant in UR Category on promotion of one Subhashree Sahu from the post of Junior Executive Assistant to the post of Senior Economic Investigator, Group-B. In the aforesaid context, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner referred to Office Order dated 19.10.2024 under Annexure-9 to the writ petition. He further contended that since a vacancy has arisen as has been indicated hereinabove, the Petitioner submitted a representation before the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Odisha, Home Department on 24.10.2024 under Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner further submitted that without first considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Executive Assistant by keeping Page 3 of 6. in view the observation of the DPC under Annexure-8, the Opposite Parties have issued a letter dated 05.11.2024 under Annexure-10 thereby initiating a fresh selection process for induction promotion to the post of Junior Executive Assistant. Being aggrieved by such conduct of Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the State, referring to the instruction dated 19.12.2024, submitted that since the Petitioner was not working in Group-D post in the Odisha Secretariat, the case of the Petitioner has not been considered for induction promotion to the post of Junior Executive Assistant. As such, the claim of the Petitioner for promotion to the Group-C post of Junior Executive Assistant is not tenable in view of the rule which provides that the same is only applicable to Group-D employees of Odisha Secretariat. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the writ petition is devoid of merit and, as such, the same should be dismissed. 7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, this Court prima facie observes that initiating the case of the Petitioner was considered along with other similarly situated candidates under Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Although the cases of the similarly situated persons have been considered and they have been given promotion to Group-C posts of Junior Executive Assistant, at the same time the case of the Petitioner was not Page 4 of 6. considered on the ground, as is evident from the Memorandum under Annexure-8, that there was no vacancy in UR Category. Moreover, the said Memorandum dated 19.01.2024 under Annexure-8 reveals that the Additional Secretary to Government has observed that the case of the Petitioner shall be recommended for promotion whenever one UR vacancy will be made available. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court found that the Memorandum under Annexure-8 runs contrary to the instruction provided to the learned counsel for the State. Further, on a careful scrutiny of the factual background of the present case, it appears that the case of the Petitioner was considered along with similarly situated other candidates and due to non-availability of vacancy in the post of Junior Executive Assistant, the case of the Petitioner was not considered. In the meantime it appears that a vacancy has occurred in Group-C post of Junior Executive Assistant on promotion of one Subhashree Sahu to a Group-B post under Annnexure-9 to the writ petition. 8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid materials on record, further keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to Group-C post of Junior Executive Assistant keeping in view the recommendation of the DPC under Annexure-8 to the writ petition as well as the vacancy that has arisen in the post of Page 5 of 6. Junior Executive Assistant belonging to the UR Category under Annexure-9 and further taking into consideration the relevant rules, within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. It further directed that in the event it is found that the Petitioner stands in similar footing with the persons who have given promotion earlier to the post of Junior Executive Assistant as induction promotion, the case of the Petitioner shall also be considered for promotion to the aforesaid Group-C post in UR Category. It is further directed that till a decision is taken as has been directed hereinabove, one post of Junior Executive Assistant in Group-C belonging to UR Category shall not be filled up by the Opposite Parties. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 16-Apr-2025 11:35:15 Page 6 of 6.