Orissa High Court
Pradeep Kumar Sethi And vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 18 November, 2022
Author: M. S. Sahoo
Bench: M. S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 18596 of 2012
Pradeep Kumar Sethi and .... Petitioners
others
Proxy Counsel Miss Rashmi Pradhan on behalf of
Mr. A.K. Biswal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. L. Samantaray, AGA for O.Ps.1 to 5
Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate for O.Ps.6 and 7
CORAM:
JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
JUSTICE M. S. SAHOO
ORDER (Oral)
18.11.2022 Order No. Hybrid Mode
06. 1. The petitioners belong to the reserved category and are holding the posts in the rank of Divisional Forest Officers comprising the services under the Orissa Forest Services, Class-I and have laid challenge to the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, whereby the application filed by Sri Rashmi Ranjan Nayak and Sri Ganeswar Behera/Opposite parties 6 and 7, belonging to the General Category claiming benefit of placement higher up in the seniority list in the rank of Divisional Forest Officer above the reserved category Junior employees having availed accelerated promotion over their Senior-General Category employees in the Feeder Cadre against roaster points based on the "Catch Up" Rule has been allowed.
2. At the time of hearing, counsel for the opposite parties 6 and 7 submits that the impugned order // 2 // herein stands implemented as based on the recasted seniority in the aforesaid rank based on the "Catch Up"
rule, the answering opposite parties and the petitioners have since been promoted to the IFS cadre since long, thereby rendering the present writ petition as infructuous.
He further states that the "Catch Up" rule providing the benefit of seniority in the promoted rank to the employees belonging to General Category over reserved category Junior employees having availed accelerated promotion from the feeder cadre against the roster points has not been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court till now.
3. Counsel for the petitioners states that they have no instruction to pursue the present writ petition.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous.
(Jaswant Singh) Judge (M.S. Sahoo) Judge November 18th 2022 Cuttack RRJena/Gs Page 2 of 2