The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.37641 of 2023 Ranjit Kumar Sundara …. Petitioner Mr.S.J.Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr.S.Rath, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 20.11.2023 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 Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the pleadings of the parties as well as the materials placed before this Court. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer : Order No. 07. “ 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 Opp.Parties specifically Opp.Party Nos. 1 to 4 to accept and consider the Property Return earlier filed by the petitioner in off-line mode and also after issuance of letter U/Annexure-4 the Property return and CCRs submitted by the petitioner through Opp Party No.5 (U/Annexure-5) for // 2 // giving promotion, from the Post of Amin to revenue Inspector (R.I) taking into the marks secured in Departmental Training CCRs. ii) Why direction shall not be given 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 in HRMS portal under Amendment Rules-2021 not been communicated to the petitioner. return to 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 deemed facts and fit and proper circumstances of the present case.” The factual background of the present case is that the the in 4. Petitioner is working as Amin under Bolagarh Tahsil in the district of Khurda, who was initially appointed as such on 27.12.2016 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 Petitioner has been shown senior to Opposite Party Nos.6 & 7 and the name of the Petitioner finds place at sl.no.14 whereas Opposite Party Nos.6 & 7 find place at Sl.Nos.15 & 16 respectively. A copy of the final Gradation list of Amin 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 // 3 // shall be made, on the basis of merit and suitability in all 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 passed such Departmental examination tests have completed at least five years of service as 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 he has completed five years of service and he also passed the departmental training. However, the authorities ignoring the seniority and just and fair claim, the Opposite Parties have given promotion to the Opposite Party Nos.6 & 7 to the next higher post of Revenue Inspector. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand referring to the Counter Affidavit filed by the State-Opposite Parties 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 Standing Counsel 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 // 4 // being for want of Annual Property Statement. Learned Additional Standing Counsel further contended that there is a 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, his case has not been considered till the same is uploaded as per the established practice on HRMS portal of the Government. Accordingly, learned Additional Standing Counsel 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 private Opposite Party Nos. 6 & 7 the case of the Petitioner has been ignored for promotion to the next higher rank although according to the Petitioner, he is senior to such private Opposite Parties as per the final gradation list under Annexure-1. Therefore, this Court is required to consider such a right of the Petitioner for promotion to the next higher rank vis-(cid:224)-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 i.e. by 31st January of every year. However, // 5 // considering the fact that 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 their Annual Property Statement within a stipulated period of time or he 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 his 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 subject to the fact that Petitioner is found eligible in terms of the relevant Rules within a period of two months 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. Rubi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-Nov-2023 19:25:22 ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge