Promotions for SC/ST candidates against unreserved vacancies require quantifiable data proving inadequacy of representation, and any related clarifications issued without such data are unconstitutional.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. Since the core issue in the present batch of Writ Petitions involves sustainability of the clarification issued by the Govt. in the ST and SC Development Department-Opp. Party No.3 on 06.05.2024 as well as 27.02.2025 basing on the view given by the Law Department on 27.02.2024 and consequential action taken thereof in the eye of law, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, W.P.(C) No.7674 of 2025 was treated as the leading case.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners while working as Asst. Engineers (Civil), they were found eligible for promotion to the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in the year 2024 in the DPC held on 04.09.2024. Petitioners were recommended to get the benefit of promotion by the DPC. However, basing on the impugned clarification issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, ST and SC Development Department on 06.05.2024 and further communication issued by the Department on 27.02.2025, recommendation made by the DPC when was cancelled vide Notification dated 04.03.2025, aggrieved by such cancellation, W.P.(C) No.7674 of 2025 was filed.

3.1. It is contended that this Court vide order dated 18.03.2025, while directing the State Counsel to obtain instruction in the matter, passed an interim order to the effect that in the event a fresh DPC is held, no final recommendation shall be made without leave of this Court till the next date. However, vide order dated 24.04.2025, interim order passed by this Court on 18.03.2025 was modified by permitting the State to issue promotion orders in respect of the persons who are found Senior to the petitioners on their own merit in respect of their own stream and who are likely to retire by 30.06.2025.

3.2. Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Petitioners while assailing the impugned clarification issued by the Department on 06.05.2024 and further communication issued in that regard on 27.02.2025, contended that Opp. Party No.3 is not at all competent to issue such a clarification in view of the provisions contained under the OCS (Criteria for Promotion)Rules, 1992 (in short Rules).

3.3. It is contended that as provided under Rule-3-A of the Amendment Rules, 2022 to the 1992 Rules, Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe candidates appointed on their own merit either by direct Recruitment or by promotion and placed above the unreserved candidates in the merit list shall be considered and adjusted against the unreserved vacancy and such candidates are not to be counted within the percentage earmarked for reservation in their category.

3.4. It is contended that in view of the Amendment carried to OCS (Criteria for Promotion) Rules, 1992 with insertion of Rule-3-A vide the Amendment Rules, 2022, there was no justification on the part of Opp. Party No.3 to issue the impugned clarification on 06.05.2024 and subsequent communication issued on27.02.2025, with a direction to all the departments of the Govt. to follow the clarification dated 06.05.2024 and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.

3.5. Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners contended that OCS (Criteria for Promotion) Rules, 1992 and the amendment carried vide Amendment Rules, 2022, were framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Art-309 of the Constitution of India and such a rule was framed at the instance of the Hon’ble Governor of Odisha.

3.6. It is accordingly conten