JUDGMENT :

D.P. Choudhury, J.

Challenge has been made to the inaction of the opposite parties for not promoting the petitioner to the post of Senior Clerk with effect from the date his juniors got promoted to the rank of Senior Clerk.

FACTS

2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the opposite party Nos.3 and 4 were appointed as Junior Clerk in the erstwhile undivided district of Sambalpur-Bargarh-Deogarh and Jharsuguda as per order No.54 dated 13.5.1998. At the same time the opposite party Nos.5 and 6 were appointed initially and joined as Junior Clerk on 22.6.1997. Be it stated that in the Gradation list communicated vide Annexure-2 the name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. No.59 and the names of opposite party Nos.3 and 4 find place at Sl. No.60 and 61 respectively but the names of opposite party Nos.5 and 6 find place at Sl. No.39 and 49 respectively.

3. It is stated that under Rule 11 (a) and Appendix-B of the Orissa District and Subordinate Courts’ Non-Judicial Staff Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter called “the Rules”) promotion to the post of Senior Clerks shall be made from amongst the Junior Clerks, who have passed the departmental examination as laid down in Appendix ‘B’ annexed to these rules; provided that, if no Junior Clerk as aforesaid is available, a Junior Clerk who has put in not less than 5 years of service as such and is otherwise suitable may be promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on temporary basis subject to the condition that he shall not be allowed any increment in the time scale of pay of the said post of Senior Clerk and shall be reverted as soon as a Junior Clerk having passed departmental examination is available. It is also made clear in that rule that promotion would be considered on the basis of merit and suitability with due regard to seniority. Be it stated that the opposite party Nos.5 and 6 were promoted on ad hoc basis to the rank of Senior Clerk/U.D. Clerk even though they have not passed the departmental examination as required under the Rules and the petitioner being Junior Clerk having passed the departmental examination under the Rules was already available on the date of ad hoc promotion of opposite party Nos.5 and 6. So, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 ignoring the Rules promoted the opposite party Nos.5 and 6 on ad hoc basis vide order dated 16.12.2011. Not only this but also the opposite party No.5 was regularized with effect from 24.12.2011 in the promotional post vide order dated 30.9.2012. It is alleged inter alia that opposite party Nos.5 and 6 had not passed departmental examination for promotion to the Senior Clerk till 16.11.2013.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that opposite party No.6 also has not passed the departmental examination till 13.11.2015. On the other hand the opposite party Nos.3 and 4 who were in the Sl. Nos.60 and 61 of the Gradation list published in the rank of Junior Clerk superseded the petitioner and were promoted to the rank of Senior Clerk vide order No.33 dated 29/30.9.2012. The petitioner purportedly has no adverse remark in his C.C.R. and has already passed the departmental examination but was ignored while his juniors got promoted in terms of the said order passed by the opposite party No.2 vide Annexure-6.

5. Then the petitioner made representation on 9.10.2012 ventilating his grievance to the opposite party No.2 but no action was taken. So, the petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No.21681 of 2012 before this Court claiming promotion to the rank of Senior Clerk from the date the opposite party Nos.3 and 4 got promoted by quashing the promotion of opposite party Nos.3 and 4. On 16.5.2013 this Court without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case directed the opposite party No.2 to look into the grievance of the petitioner as made out in his representation by the end of July 2013. Then the opposite party No.2 purportedly promoted the petitioner