The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 02. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.35975 of 2023 Sudesniya Biswal …. Petitioner Mr. S.J. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ….
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr. N.K. Praharaj, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 30.11.2023 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto and the materials placed before this Court. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer : “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition and issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to; i) Why direction shall not be given to the Opposite Parties specifically Opp. party Nos.1 to 4 to accept and consider the the petitioner Property Return filed by through proper channel in off-line mode after over the cut of date (U/Annexure-5) for giving promotion, from the Post of Amin to // 2 // Revenue Inspector (R.I.) taking into the marks secured in Departmental Examination and CCRs as per the Draft Gradation list published of Amins working under Khurda District (U/Annexure-2). ii) Why direction shall not be given to the Opp. Parties to allow the petitioner to submit property return in HRMS portal on the grounds that the last date of cut off for submitting the Property return in HRMS portal under Amendment Rules-2021 not been communicated to the petitioner. If the Opp. Parties fail to show any cause or show any insufficient cause, the aforesaid Rule be made absolute by issuing an appropriate writ/writs, And pass any other order/orders as would be facts and deemed circumstances of the present case.” fit and proper the in 4. The factual background of the present case is that the Petitioner is working as Amin under Bolagarh Tahsil in the district of Khurda, who was initially appointed as such on 16.11.2016 on being duly selected by following a regular recruitment process. Thereafter, the Petitioner appeared in the departmental training and accordingly, the Petitioner was declared successful in he said departmental training. Further, on the basis of the performance in the departmental training, a gradation list was prepared on 01.06.2023 and in the said gradation list, the name of the Petitioner finds place at Sl. No.9. A copy of the final Gradation list of Amins has also been filed as Annexure-2. 5. It is further stated in the Writ Petition that the Petitioner’s next promotion is Revenue Inspector (R.I.). Under Rule-11 of the Orissa District Revenue Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1982 . The said Rule provides as follows: “11. Promotion to the cadre of Revenue Inspectors shall be made, on the basis of merit and suitability in all // 3 // respects with due regard to seniority, from among the Amins and Collection Mohairs of the District who, on the first day of January of the year in which the Committee meets- a) such and b) as may be prescribed from time to time; have completed at least five years of service as have passed such Departmental examination tests Provided that the percentage of promotion of the Amins and Collection Moharirs to the rank of Revenue Inspector shall as nearly as possible, be proportionate to the total strength of such employees continuing on regular basis in the district.” 6. By referring to the aforesaid Rule, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended before this Court that the Petitioner is eligible to be promoted to the next higher post of Revenue Inspector as she has completed five years of service and she also passed the departmental training. However, the authorities ignoring the seniority and just and fair claim, the Opposite Parties have given promotion to the juniors to the next higher post of Revenue Inspector. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted before this Court that the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector was not considered as because Annual Property Statement of the Petitioner was not uploaded in the website. Therefore, in absence of the Annual Property Statement, the case of the Petitioner was not considered by the DPC while considering the case of the Petitioner. Accordingly, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that it is not the case that the case of the Petitioner for promotion have been rejected by the Opposite Parties, however, the same has been deferred for the time being for want of Annual Property Statement. Learned Additional Government Advocate further contended that there is a // 4 // prescribed Rule for providing Annual Property Statement of the employees of the Government. It is also contended that the Annual Property Statement of the employees are to be uploaded in the website on or before 31st January every year. Since the Petitioner has not uploaded the Annual Property Statement in the website, her case has not been considered till the same is uploaded as per the established practice on HRMS portal of the Government. Accordingly, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the present Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on a careful consideration of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the pleadings of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that right to be considered for promotion to the next higher rank has been well recognized under the provisions of the Constitution. In the present case, it has been alleged that such right to be considered for promotion has been infringed by the conduct of the Opposite Parties, moreso, while considering the cases of juniors, the case of the Petitioner has been ignored for promotion to the next higher rank although according to the Petitioner, she is senior to those are promoted as per the final gradation list under Annexure-2. Therefore, this Court is required to consider such a right of the Petitioner for promotion to the next higher rank vis-à-vis the procedure formulated for uploading Annual Property Statement in the HRMS website portal of the State Government. No doubt, the Petitioner has to upload the Annual Property Statement within a specified period of time as has been stated in the G.A. & P.G. Department Notification i.e. by 31st January of every year. However, considering the fact that // 5 // the right of the Petitioner to be considered for promotion is getting affected, this Court deems it proper that the Petitioner should be given another opportunity to either upload her Annual Property Statement within a stipulated period of time or she may be directed to submit hard copy before the competent authority which would be the larger interest of justice. 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual position as well as law, this Court deems it proper to direct the Opposite Parties to provide an opportunity to the Petitioner to submit her Annual Property Statement either by opening their website portal for a particular time within which the Petitioner has to submit the Annual Property Statement or the Opposite Parties may provide an opportunity to the Petitioner to submit hard copy of the Annual Property Statement within a period of three weeks from today. In the event the Petitioner submits hard copy of Annual Property Statement in any one of the mode as indicated herein above, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are directed to convene a review DPC to consider the case of promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Revenue Inspector from the date the juniors to the Petitioner are promoted subject to the fact that Petitioner is found eligible in terms of the relevant Rules within a period of four weeks from today. 10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Debasis Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 04-Dec-2023 12:12:27 ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge