The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to invoke the principle of 'moulding of relief' to ensure complete justice between the parties, even in the absence of a specific prayer for relief.

JUDGMENT

S. K. Panigrahi, J. - In the present Writ Appeals, the appellants seek to challenge the common judgment and order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.29460 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No.30837 of 2011 wherein the learned Single Judge has concluded that;

" xxxx xxxx xxxx

19. Therefore, applying the above mentioned law laid down by the apex Court and also of this Court to the present context, this Court is of the considered view that as the petitioners have worked in the higher post and discharged higher responsibility attached to the said post, being appointed against the vacant posts by following DPC, subsequently reverted, but by following review DPC again promoted to the post of Senior Assistant, therefore, the benefits which they have already received that cannot be curtailed or reduced in any manner. Consequentially, their scale of pay should be fixed accordingly and the direction given, vide order dated 20.12.2011 in Annexure-7, for reducing their salary to the basic minimum scale of pay, cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed to that extent.

20. Both the writ applications are thus allowed. No order to costs."

2. Since common question of facts and law are involved in both of these Writ Appeals, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The factual background of the matter revolves around the fact that in the year 1994, the appellant University decided to upgrade 9 Junior Assistants to the position of Senior Assistants subject to approval being accorded by the Department of Higher Education, Odisha and the Chancellor of Berhampur University. Similarly, 9 Junior Assistants were additionally promoted to the position of Senior Assistants in the year 1997 subject to the approval as aforementioned.

4. Subsequently, however, the Department of Higher Education, Odisha did not accord approvalto the recommendation for such upgradation and instead informed the office of the Chancellor, Berhampur University to revert the candidates in question to their original position as well as to recover the excess payments made consequent to their upgradation as Senior Assistants. Consequently, on 29.07.2004 the Chancellor denied approval for the upgradation for the 18 Junior Assistants who had been promoted and directed that all of them be restored to their position as held by them before the upgradation had taken effect. Therefore, on 06.09.2007, an order was passed by the appellant University reverting such upgraded Senior Assistants to their previous position as was held by them before the upgradation.

5. It is pertinent to note here that the appellant University's order dated 06.09.2007 restoring those upgraded Senior Assistants to their previous posts was challenged before this Hon'ble Court vide W.P.(C) Nos.12854 of 2007, 11368 of 2007, 12562 of 2007, 12564 of 2007 and 12566 of 2007. These Writ Petitions were disposed of by this Court vide a common judgment and order dated 4.08.2011 wherein while upholding the order of reversion, it was directed that the then petitioners, now respondents be placed and adjusted in the gradation list of Junior Assistants as they would have been placed prior to their date of upgradation and not at the bottom of the list. It was further directed therein that if any consequential benefits hadaccrued to such persons from the date of their upgradation to the date of their reversion, the same shall be conferred on them in accordance with the rules as applicable.

6. In light of the said order, the appellant University decided to constitute a review Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as "DPC") and issued a notice to the members of the DPC vide letter dated 31.10.2011. Being aggrieved by the decision of the appellant University to conduct a DPC, the present respondents filed W.P. (C) No.29460 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No.30837 of 2011, whose final order and judgment is assailed in the present Writ Appeals.

7. At