Orissa High Court
Biharilal Barik vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 25 August, 2021
Author: B.R. Sarangi
Bench: B.R. Sarangi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 1371 of 2020
Biharilal Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Rath, Advocate
-Versus -
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Party
.
Mr. D.K. Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
25.08.2021 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
042. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the State-wise final gradation list of Panchayat Executive Officers (PEOs) dated 03.07.2019 published by the Government under Annexure-1, and to issue direction to the opposite parties to fix his seniority above opposite party no.5 within a stipulated time.
3. Pursuant to notice issued on 20.01.2020, opposite party no.1 filed counter affidavit on 15.10.2020, of which paragraph-6 reads as follows:-
"That it is humbly submitted that basing on the State level Gradation (Seniority) list of PEOs, 2019, the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held on 08.01.2020 for consideration of promotion of eligible PEOs to the post of GPEO & PA as per the Orissa Gram Panchayat Extension Officers' and Progress Assistants' (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002 and subsequent amendment thereto. In the said meeting, the promotion case of the petitioner was considered along with opposite party no.5. Due to pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner, the findings of the DPC have been kept in the sealed cover as per Rule. The Page 1 of 2 opposite party no.5 was not found suitable for promotion for want of CCR. Since the case of the petitioner for promotion to the higher post has been considered along with the opposite party no.5 in the DPC meeting held on 08.01.2020, it needs no interference by this Hon'ble Court."
4. As it reveals from above, due to pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner, the findings of the DPC have been kept in sealed cover as per rules and, as such, opposite party no.5 was not found suitable for promotion for want of CCR.
5. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.21647 of 2021 on 02.08.2021, since there is no disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner except the criminal case, the case of the petitioner for promotion which has been kept in a sealed cover should be considered by the authority in the light of the order passed by this Court on 02.08.2021.
6. Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that the case of the petitioner for promotion will be considered by the authority as expeditiously as possible.
7. Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this writ petition stands disposed of directing the opposite parties to consider the case of petitioner for promotion as well for fixation of his seniority, in the light of the order dated 02.08.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.21647 of 2021, and pass appropriate order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
Ashok (Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
Judge
Page 2 of 2