Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
SANJU PANDA, S. K. PANIGRAHI, JJ.
Manoranjan Biswal – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and others – Respondents
W.P.(C) No.6844 of 2018 and W.P.(C) Nos.13517 and 19023 of 2019
Decided on : 25-06-2021
Administrative Tribunal Act - Section 21 - Orissa Military Police Act, 1946 - Section 4 - Orissa Civil Services (Criteria for Promotion) Rules, 1992 - Rule-11 with Section 10 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 and 227 - Odisha Armed Police Service (Method of Recruitment) Rules, 2000 - Rule-17(ii) - Fixation of inter se seniority - Feeder cadre - Whether there is any illegality or arbitrariness in decision-making process and not decision as such - Seeking re-fixation of inter se seniority and claimed that he should be placed above petitioner on basis of his earlier entry into service - Since his representation was kept unattended by authority for a long time, opposite party - petitioner was duly selected and appointed as Jamadar - dispute as it emanates from fixation of seniority in accordance with Rules 17(ii) of Rule on basis of date of joining rank of “Subedar” and “Reserve Inspector” without considering the date of promotion to aforesaid post - Distortion of entire seniority, especially, of those who were initially appointed as “Sergeant” and were later promoted to post of “Reserve Inspector” and to rank of “Assistant Commandant”, by placing them in the cadre of Assistant Commandant below their counterparts who were initially appointed as “Jamadars” and promoted as “Subedar/Subedar Major”, (who were junior in feeder cadre),without reference to their length of service.
Finding of the Court:
It is settled law that a writ of certiorari can only be issued in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction - a previous order of Tribunal striking down self-same Rule-17(ii) of Rules, 2000 was never challenged for over two years and has since attained finality. This stand is further substantiated by the fact that said order was duly implemented by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 while preparing the gradation list. Hence, the impugned order of the learned Tribunal reiterating its order dated 08.05.2017 in O.A. regarding recasting of seniority on the basis of the length of service is in conformity with law and merits no interference by this Court - learned Tribunal was right in deciding the issue against writ petitioners and same does not warrant any kind of interference by way of a writ of Certiorari - Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were directed to make appropriate provision in consonance with Rule 5(iii), 6(iii) and 17 (i) of Rules, 2000 to re-fix the seniority in cadre of Assistant Commandant - Considering degree of sensitivity attached to posts and each of Officer’s feeling that he fails to get best deal by Government or members of force are being deprived of being led by best men will certainly weaken the esteem and morale of force.
Result: Writ Petitions dismissed
JUDGMENT :
S. K. Panigrahi, J.
1. As the grievance and prayer sought for by the petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are one and the same, all the Writ Petitions were heard together and are being taken up for disposal by this common judgment. For convenience of discussion, W.P.(C) No.6844 of 2018 is taken up as the leading case.
Factual Matrix of the case:
2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6844 of 2018 assails the order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.1530(C) of 2014 primarily on the ground that the said order is erroneous as well as improper sans proper service of notice.
3. The facts as narrated in the writ petition boils down to the issue of seniority in promotion. The petitioner was duly selected and appointed as Jamadar on 03.09.1990, later promoted to the post of Subedar on 25.08.2002 and on the basis of his seniority, he was posted in OSAP 7th Battalion, Bhubaneswar. He was further promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant on 07.08.2008 and posted in OSAP 6th Battalion, Cuttack and, subsequently, he was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant vide order dated 14.07.2014 and posted in 2nd SS Battalion, Keonjhar.
4. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.3 who is the contesting opposite party herein was appointed as Sergeant on 04.09.1985 as per the Provisions prescribed under the Odisha Special Armed Police Act, 1946.He was promoted to the rank of Reserve Inspector on 02.12.2002 and, further, promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant vide Notification dated 16.08.2008. The entire controversy in the present case rests on promotion of the petitioner to the higher rank/post earlier than the opposite party No.3 even though his initial appointment was much prior to him i.e., on 04.09.1985, which is about five years later and also one rank higher to the petitioner, leading to a natural heartburn at his end due to such adverse inter se seniority in service.
5. Aggrieved thereby, O.P. No.3sent a representation to the opposite party No.1 seeking re-fixation of inter se seniority and claimed that he should be placed above the petitioner on the basis of his earlier entry into the service. Since his representation was kept unattended by the authority for a long time, the opposite party No.3 approached the learned Tribunal vide O.A. No.536(C) 2014. The said O.A. No.536(C) 2014 was disposed of on 14.02.2014 with a direction to the Government to dispose the representation filed by the opposite party No.3 within a stipulated period. Thereafter, the representation made by the opposite party No.3 was considered and rejected on 14.03.2014 by the Opposite Party No.1 relying on the Rule-17(ii) of the Odisha Special Arms Police (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service), Rules 2000. Being aggrieved by such rejection, Opposite Party No.3 and other similarly placed candidates approached the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack vide O.A.1530(C) of 2014 seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to re-fix the seniority of the said Opposite Parties Nos.3 to 15 in the rank of Assistant Commandant and to grant them all consequential service and financial benefits.
6. The Opposite Party No.3, further, prayed for a declaration that the provision of Rule-17(ii) of the Odisha Special Arms Police (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service), Rules 2000 to be void, being arbitrary and unreasonable. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 26.10.2017 disposed of the Original Application relying on an earlier order passed in Original Application being O.A.No.941 of 2014 and directed the Respondents to take appropriate action for modification of Rule-17(ii) and thereafter, to reconsider the seniority of the Opposite Party No.3 vis-à-vis the petitioner in accordance with the Rules in a time bound manner.
7. It is apposite to note that Rule-3 of the Odisha Special Armed Police (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2000 mandates that t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
