##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 8291 of 2023

Premananda Mohanty (cid:0)«(cid:0)(cid:17)

Petitioner Mr. B.S. Tripathy (1), Sr. Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha & Ors.

(cid:0)«(cid:0)(cid:17) Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC

CORAM:

JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

09.04.2026 Order No.

06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that on the face of the recommendation made by the DPC in its proceeding

dtd.16.01.2014 under Annexure-4-Series as against 24 available vacancies in the rank of Chief Engineer (Civil), the DPC recommended 23 candidates and in the said recommendation name of the Petitioner finds place at

Sl. No.7.

3.1 However, only one (1) of the recommended candidate was given the benefit of promotion vide

Notification dtd.27.01.2014 under Annexure-4-Series and Petitioner was never extended with the benefit on

// 2 //

the face of the recommendation so available under Ammexure-4.

4. It is further contended that Petitioner retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2014. Petitioner prior to availing the benefit of promotion since retired from his services, he could not

take appropriate step in the matter.

5. Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned counsel placing on the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party No.1 contended that as on the date of holding of the DPC only 4 vacancies were there and the DPC made the

recommendation anticipating the vacancies at 22. The stand taken in Para-9 of the counter affidavit reads as

follows:-

(cid:0)·(cid:0)(cid:28)(cid:0)(cid:17)(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)7(cid:0)K(cid:0)D(cid:0)W(cid:0)(cid:15)(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)L(cid:0)W(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)L(cid:0)V(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)S(cid:0)H(cid:0)U(cid:0)W(cid:0)L(cid:0)Q(cid:0)H(cid:0)Q(cid:0)W(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)W(cid:0)R(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)P(cid:0)H(cid:0)Q(cid:0)W(cid:0)L(cid:0)R(cid:0)Q(cid:0)(cid:3)

petitioner in his writ petition has mentioned that there were 22 vacancies were available for his promotion. It may be mentioned that the total anticipated vacancy for the entire year is taken into consideration while

the Departmental Promotion Committee sit for considering the eligible officers for promotion. In the present case though it has been reflected in the vacancy as 22 as estimated number of vacancy the

breakup of the total number stands as such:

Existing Vacancy 04 Vacancy on retirement 15 Consequential Vacancy 03

Total 22

The position of the Petitioner was at serial No.8 in the gradation. There were only 4 clear existing vacancies for promotion from Superintending Engineer (Civil) to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil). But the State Government then decided to give promotion to one

Page 2 of 4

// 3 //

person to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) though there were 4 clear vacancies in the post of Chief Engineer(C) on the date of the DPC i.e.Dt.16.01.2014. Out of the seven above the present petitioner one Sri

Harekrushna Padhy case was kept in a sealed cover due to pendency of departmental proceedings against him, thus the serial number of the present petitioner came down to 7. Even if promotion would have been given to four officers, then also the petitioner had no

chance to be selected for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) and the Petitioner retired from (cid:0)W(cid:0)K(cid:0)H(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)*(cid:0)R(cid:0)Y(cid:0)H(cid:0)U(cid:0)Q(cid:0)P(cid:0)H(cid:0)Q(cid:0)W(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)V(cid:0)H(cid:0)U(cid:0)Y(cid:0)L(cid:0)F(cid:0)H (cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)R(cid:0)Q(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)G(cid:0)W(cid:0)(cid:17)(cid:0)(cid:22)(cid:0)(cid:20)(cid:0)(cid:17)(cid:0)(cid:19)(cid:0)(cid:20)(cid:0)(cid:17)(cid:0)(cid:21)(cid:0)(cid:19)(cid:0)(cid:20)(cid:0)(cid:23)(cid:0)(cid:17)(cid:0)µ

6. This Court after going through the proceeding of the DPC dtd.16.01.2014 under Annexure-4-Series finds that DPC was conducted to fill