The court directed the petitioner to seek rectification of seniority through a formal representation and granted an interim stay on the promotion of juniors appointed after the petitioner until the representation is decided.

Order On Board

1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :-

Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce entire records pertaining to instant matter.

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably in the nature of Certiorari, quashing and setting aside the final seniority list dated 22/04/2026 issued by the respondents for promotion from the post of Constable to Head Constable in District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, to the extent it places the petitioner at Sl. No. 60;

10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner in accordance with his date of initial appointment i.e. 27/10/2010 and place him at sl. No. 36, above his juniors, namely Lilesh Kumar Sahu and Dilip Kumar Tenduve (who have bee appointed later vide 02/11/2010 and 08/11/2020 respectively);

10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Further direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Constable strictly in accordance with his rightful seniority position;

10.5 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents authorities have initiated the proceedings of promotion from the post of Constable to Head Constable and according to the rules applicable to the petitioner, promotion is to be ordered based on the seniority. Petitioner’s name has been considered by authorities for promotion as he also fell in zone of consideration, however, at the time of preparation of list by respondents authorities of eligible candidates, name of petitioners have been placed at Sr. No.60. He contended that respondents authorities have prepared the list only on the basis of seniority of the Constables in their cadre. He contended that persons/employees placed at Sr. No.36 and 37 of the same list have been appointed subsequent to petitioner, therefore, they are juniors to petitioners, however, they have been placed much above to petitioner, therefore, direction be issued to respondents authorities to place the name of petitioner above Lilesh Kumar Sahu mentioned at Sr. No.36.

3. Learned State counsel submits that this is select list and not seniority list. The authorities have prepared the select list based on the seniority of employees/candidates who have been eligible, however, petitioner has not placed any documents to show that petitioners has approached the authorities by way of submitting representation. If petitioner submits representation raising his grievance as raised in this writ petition, then grievance of petitioner could have been considered in appropriate manner.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in view of the submission of learned State counsel, he may be permitted to submit representation raising his grievances as raised in this writ petition and direction be issued to respondent No.4 to consider and take decision on the representation within specified time frame and further direction be issued to authorities that till the representation to be submitted by petitioner is decided, order of promotion of candidates, junior in the cadre based on the date of appointment of petitioner, shall not be made.

5. I have heard learned