The main legal point established in the judgment is that promotion decisions should be based on merit with due regard to seniority, as per the Orissa High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1963, and the principle of merit-cum-seniority.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is at the behest of the Petitioner challenging decision of Registrar (Judicial)-cum-Disciplinary Authority, High Court of Orissa (O.P. No. 1) for not considering his departmental promotion with effect from 3rd December, 2002 instead of 30th June, 2006 and to consider the same in compliance of the order of this Court dated 11th December, 2012 passed in M.C. No. 17027 of 2012 arising out of W.P. (C) No. 15607 of 2005 by according seniority to him from the date when his juniors were promoted and in consonance with the gradation list dated 26th April, 2001 prepared vis-a-vis Senior Assistant and as per the civil list published and corrected up to October, 2013.

2. Initially the Petitioner joined as a Lower Divisional Assistant on 23rd February, 1981 and was later promoted to the higher post as per the seniority and pursuant to the decision of O.P. No. 1 from time to time but he was deprived of promotion to the post of Section Officer (as it was Superintendent Level-II by then) to which he was otherwise eligible according to the seniority and gradation list dated 26th April, 2001. In fact, the Petitioner while posted as Senior Assistant faced a departmental proceeding in 1999 on the allegation of interpolation of Court records but then, at the end of the proceeding, since charges were found proved, he was reverted to the post of Junior Assistant, whereafter, he preferred an appeal but the findings and the penalty imposed was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. As per the Petitioner, the aforesaid decision of the Appellate Authority was challenged in W.P. (C) No. 15607 of 2005 and the same was disposed of by order dated 9th November, 2010, whereby, the decision on the first charge of interpolation was set aside though the second one sustained and as the penalty was held to be disproportionate, the matter was remitted back for orders by the disciplinary authority which then imposed a punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect by its order dated 15th December, 2010. It is the contention of the Petitioner that though thereafter, he was promoted, it was with effect from 2006 and not from 3rd December, 2002 notwithstanding the fact that the major charge of interpolation was set aside in W.P. (C) No. 15607 of 2005. As pleaded, the above decision of O.P. No. 1 to promote the Petitioner from 30th June, 2006 was without any cogent reason ignoring his seniority for promotion. According to the Petitioner, he was allowed to draw annual increment with effect from 1st August, 2010 but pursuant to the decision of the disciplinary authority and order passed in D.P. No. 2 of 1999, the increment which was falling due on 1st August, 2002 was stopped. Furthermore, the Petitioner claims that by virtue of the order dated 11th December, 2012 in M.C. No. 17027 of 2012 arising out of W.P. (C) No. 15607 of 2005, he submitted a representation dated 17th December, 2012 before O.P. No. 2. It is further claimed that as he had already been promoted and holding the post of Section Officer in the year 2013, he was stated to be promoted to the post of Superintendent Level-II vide notification dated 6th December, 2013 retrospectively with effect from 30th June, 2006 indicating that the pay shall be fixed notionally without any entitlement to the arrear differential salary for the period from 30th June, 2006 to 10th April, 2012. The Petitioner, therefore, claims for re-fixation of inter-se seniority among the Senior Assistants considering the civil list corrected up to 2013 and promotion to the post Superintendent Level-II with effect from 3rd December, 2002 and then, as Assistant Registrar with effect from 25th January, 2014 by fixing his seniority accordingly and as per the gradation list dated 26th April, 2001. Precisely the above relief has been sought for by the Petitioner with a direction to O.P. No. 1 to grant him all conseq