The High Court
Case Details
// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.30632 of 2024 Rajkishore Naik ….
Legal Reasoning
Petitioner(s) Mr. Manas Pati, Adv. State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. ORDER 16.01.2025 04. 1. These matters are taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer: “The petitioner therefore prays that your lordships may graciously be pleased to quash the promotion order dated 26.09.2024 under Annexure-2, so far as private Opp. parties No. 4 to 28 and direct the Opp. Parties to consider for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police(Armed) from the date juniors i.e. private Opp. parties no. 4 to 28 have been promoted by the Opp. party no. 3 vide order dated 26.09.2024 under Annexure-2, by convening a review DPC with all consequential service and financial benefits taking into consideration Annexure- 3,5,6,7&8 within stipulated time. And pass such order/ directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” Page 1 of 6 // 2 // 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Court has earlier decided the similar issue in the judgment dated 24.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.12516 of 2020 (Lalit Kumar Nayak –vrs.- State of Orissa & Ors.). Hence, he submits that this Writ Petition may be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Lalit Kumar Nayak –vrs.- State of Orissa & Ors. (supra). 5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that he has no objection, if this matter is disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Lalit Kumar Nayak –vrs.- State of Orissa & Ors. (supra). 6. On perusal of the records and the judgment passed in the case of Lalit Kumar Nayak -vrs.- State of Orissa & Ors. (supra), it appears that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in the said judgment which was disposed of on 24.07.2024. The ordering portion of the said judgment is as follows: “5. Heard the Learned Counsels for both parties and meticulously examined the documents submitted before this Court. As per Rule 11 of the Orissa District Revenue Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983, promotions to Revenue Inspectors are based on merit, suitability, and seniority among Amins and Assistant Revenue Inspectors. They need to have at least five years of service and have passed required departmental exams/tests. 6. Furthermore, the Orissa Civil Services (Criteria For Promotion) Rules, 1992 state that promotions are based on merit, suitability, and seniority, with the select list arranged Page 2 of 6 // 3 // by seniority. The 2022 amendment clarifies that SC/ST candidates promoted or recruited on their merit and placed above unreserved candidates will fill unreserved vacancies and not be counted towards the reserved quota. 7. Now, let us peruse the relevant judicial precedents that elucidate this issue. In the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India1 the Apex Court, while referencing the intent of Article 16(4) of the Constitution opined that “In this connection it 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.” 8. In the case of R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab2, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court addressed the issue of appointments, promotions, and the use of roster points in relation to reservations. It held in para 5 as under: the and categories “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 from amongst the members of reserve candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered for the reserve posts. On the other hand, the reserve category candidates can compete for the non-reserve posts and in the event of their 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