Orissa High Court
WP(C)/14087/2020 on 14 July, 2020
W.P.(C) No.14087 of 2020
02. 14.07.2020 Heard Mr. A. Mahanta, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. M.K. Khuntia, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State-opposite party
nos.1 and 2 by Video Conferencing mode.
2. This writ petition has been filed by Nepal
Chandra Munda-petitioner assailing the judgment of
the State Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (for
short, "the Tribunal") dated 07.02.2019 passed in O.A.
No.1226 of 2018 with the further prayer that opposite
party nos.1 and 2 may be directed to effect promotion
of the petitioner retrospectively from the date of his
immediate junior so promoted with all consequential
service and financial benefits.
3. According to the case set up by the petitioner,
who is a member of Odisha Revenue Service and
posted as Additional Tahasildar, Rairakhol,
approached the Tribunal for relief of promotion to the
Orissa Administrative Service Cadre (for short, „OAS‟),
Group-A (JB). The Tribunal dismissed the original
application filed by the petitioner.
4. Mr. A. Mahanta, learned counsel for the
petitioner in assailing the judgment of the Tribunal
-2-
contended that the Odisha Revenue Service, Group-B
(Probation and Departmental Examination) Rules,
2016 (for short, "the 2016 Rules") promulgated by the
Government of Orissa vide notification dated
10.05.2016, wherein Rule 7 provides that a probationer shall be eligible for confirmation if he has passed the Departmental Examination. However, this 2016 Rules would only apply prospectively. Since the petitioner was promoted initially on adhoc basis in Odisha Revenue Service, Group „B‟ against the recruitment year, 2011 for a period of one year or until receipt of concurrence of Orissa Public Service Commission (for short, "the OPSC"), on receipt of the concurrence he would be deemed to be appointed on regular basis on 20.04.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the notification of the Government dated 12.02.2018 by which the State Government considering the vacancies available in the cadre and non-availability of the eligible candidates with the minimum required numbers of years of service, in consultation with the OPSC invoking its power of relaxation has reduced the requisite period of experience of six years prescribed under Rule-6(1)(iii) -3- of the Odisha Administrative Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 (for short, "the 2011 Rules") as one time measure to four years for consideration of promotion of officers of Orissa Revenue Service (for short, "the ORS") to the rank of OAS-A (JB).
5. Per contra, Mr. M.K. Khuntia, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties submits that even if the 2016 Rules are not applicable to the case of the petitioner, he having been appointed by way of promotion to ORS Group „B‟ by order dated 20.04.2013, the 2011 Rules would still apply to him in which Rule-6(1)(iii) categorically provides that a person shall be eligible for promotion to the post in Group-A (Junior Branch) of the service if he has completed six years of service on regular basis in consultation with the Commission on the 1st day of the January of the year and has passed departmental Examination, if any, or has been exempted from such examination. Even if the period of experience is taken to be four years, which is reduced, the condition of passing of the departmental examination has to be mandatorily complied with. In fact, the petitioner as -4- per his own admission in Para-3 of the writ petition appeared in the departmental examination but failed to clear the same. That being so, the Tribunal was fully justified in dismissing the original application.
6. On consideration of all the rival submissions and after examination of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, we find that the petitioner indeed cannot be considered eligible for promotion as per the mandatory requirement of Rule-6(1)(iii) of 2011 Rules, which reads as under:-
"6. Eligibility criteria for promotion:-(1) A person shall be eligible for promotion to the post in Group-A (Junior Branch) of the service if:-
xxx
(iii) He/she has completed six years of service on regular basis in consultation with the Commission on the 1st day of the January of the year and has passed Departmental Examination, if any, or has been exempted from the same."
7. Although the requirement of experience of completion of six years as envisaged in the afore- quoted Rule has been reduced to four years by the State Government after invoking Rule 17 of the OAS Rules, 2011 but the condition of departmental examination was not exempted. The petitioner has -5- admitted that he appeared in the departmental examination, but failed to clear the same.
8. The Tribunal in our view rightly dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner with the following reason:-
"xxx that as per Rule-6 of G.A. Deptt. Notification dtd.25th June, 2011 to regulate the method of recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to Orissa Administrative Service, a personal shall be eligible for promotion to Group-A(JB) of the service if he/she has completed six years of service on regular basis in consultation with the commission on the first day of January of the year and "has passed departmental examination" if any, or has been exempted from the same. Subsequently that six years service period has been reduced to four years as one time dispension vide Annx.7 dtd.12th February, 2018 but passing of departmental examination has not been exempted. So, the stand of the applicants that as because at the time of their probation the Govt. notification dt.10.5.2016 was not in force and there is no requirement for them to pass departmental examination for promotion to OAS Group-A (JB), cannot be accepted as it is not legally tenable in view of Rule-6(iii) of OAS Recruitment Rules, 2011. Besides this, it is to be noted that 40 ORS officers, who have been promoted to OAS Group-A (JB), were also recruitee to ORS Group- B during the period of these applicants but they had completed departmental training in pursuance to Govt. notification dt.10.5.2016 and permission given by the Board of Revenue, Orissa in its notification dt.10.11.2016 allowing them to appear the departmental examination."-6-
9. Considering the submission made and keeping in view the findings of the Tribunal given in the impugned judgment, we do not find any infirmity so as to warrant any interference. We find no merit in the present writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioners may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court‟s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court‟s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.
(Mohammad Rafiq) Chief Justice (Debabrata Dash) Judge mp