The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.33590 of 2022 Laxminarayana Sabat …. Petitioners Mr. Subhankar Rout, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa and others ….
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr.T.Patnaik, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 05.04.2023 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Standing Counsel. Perused the Writ Petition as well ad the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer : “Under these circumstances the Petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to admit the Writ Application and issue RULE NISI in the nature of any appropriate writ/writs and/or any other writ/writs and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions calling upon the Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 to show cause as to why the CCR of the Petitioner for the year 2005-07 shall not be considered in respect of statutory consideration of CCR of five years and as to why the order under Annexure-2 shall not be quashed law and upon showing being unsustainable in // 2 // insufficient cause or no cause direct the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 to take the available CCR for the year 2005-07 as five years CCR and accordingly select the Petitioner from the year 2011 instead of 2012 and be declared as senior from the Opposite Party No.4 to 6 in the gradation list published under Annexure-2. And further be pleased to pass any other appropriate direction shall be given to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the candidature of the Petitioner along with Opp.Party No.4 to 6 and further direct the State Opp.Parties to grant Promotion with all consequential service and financial benefits in favour of the Petitioner from the date4 of promotion of Opp.Party No.4 to 6. And further be pleased to pass necessary orders/directions to which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice,” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that persons similarly placed with the Petitioner had earlier approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench by filing O.A.No.1862 of 2016 and batch of other Original Applications. Learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal by a common order dated 26.04.2019 disposed of all the Original Applications with a direction to the Opposite Parties therein as follows: “ xxx xxx xxx The fact remains 7. the applicants are not that responsible for non-submission of CCRs for the year, 2005-06 by the R.D.C.(S.D.) to the Secretary, Board of Revenue. He instead of submitting the CCRs for the year, 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, he had submitted CCR for the year 2006-2007 to 2010-2011. But as the recruitment is for the year, 2011, the CCR of 2010-2011 was not considered. It is seen from the copies of the CCRs obtained through R.T.I. that these applicants seems to have outstanding CCRs from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 and even prior to it and subsequent to it and therefore, for the interest of justice, their cases needs for reconsideration for their // 3 // continuance in selection against 2011 recruitment year instead of placing them in 2012 recruitment year pursuant dated to Review Selection Committee meeting 06.01.20216. 8. Hence, all the O.As are disposed of directing the respondents to reconsider the cases of the applicants for their continuance in ORS Recruitment year 2011 on verification of the CCRs for the period from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. This exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and convey the result thereof to the applicants soon thereafter.” After disposal of the aforesaid Original Application, the applicants approached the Opposite Parties for reconsideration of their cases in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 26.04.2019. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that the cases of the applicants, who had earlier approached the Tribunal had been considered by the Opposite Parties and their seniority have been restored by giving them their relief they sought for. So far as the present Petitioner is concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner stands in a similar footing with the applicants and the illegality committed which has been vividly discussed in the order passed by the Tribunal. The Petitioner has also been victimized and suffered a lot. Accordingly, after disposal of the aforesaid Original Applications by a common order, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition for redressal of his grievance as he stands on a similar footing like the applicants in the aforesaid Original Application. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the Petitioner approached this Court for the first time without approaching the departmental authority. Therefore, there is // 4 // no scope for the authority to consider the case of the Petitioner. He further contended that the Petitioner also did not approach the Tribunal along with the applicants in the Original Application referred to herein above. Therefore, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that it would be proper if the Petitioner is directed to approach the authority first by filing a detailed representation which shall be considered by Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Standing Counsel and upon a careful consideration of the background facts of the present case, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party Nos.1,2 & 3 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with a copy of the common order dated 26.04.2019 passed in O.A.No.1862 of 2016 and batch of other matters in the matter of Bhabani Sankar Rath-vrs. State of Odisha and others within a period of two weeks from today. In the event such a representation is filed the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 shall do well to consider the same keeping in view the direction made by the Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Application and in the event the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 comes to a conclusion that the Petitioner stands in similar footing with the applicants in the aforesaid Original Application, similar benefit be extended in favour of the Petitioner and accordingly all service benefits as well financial benefits, if any, be calculated and extended to the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to act on production of certified copy // 5 // of this order and any order on the representation of the Petitioner be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge