Orissa High Court
Pravat Kumar Mishra vs State Of Odisha And Others on 9 September, 2025
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No.2343 of 2024
Pravat Kumar Mishra .... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. G. Mukherji, Sr. Advocate along with
Ms. A. Mukherji, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondents
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
09.09.2025 (Hybrid Mode) Order No.
07. 1. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant was heard at some length.
It is submitted that the appellant joined service on 06.01.1998 in the establishment of respondent no.2-organisation, working as „Programmer-cum-Training Officer‟ in the Scale of Pay of Rs.8,250/- with the admissible emoluments in the category of "Group „C‟ Officers Category-1". After working for some time, he was given the assignment and worked as System Analyst to head the Management Information System (MIS) by order dated 28.09.2005. After continuing for some time the post was redesignated as Assistant Director(MIS) by order dated 13.03.2006 Page 1 of 4 in the category of Group „B‟ Officers Category-1 in the scale of pay of Rs.12,000/- with admissible emoluments. The appellant had a degree in Master in Computer Application (MCA) in the year 2005 from Naba Bharat Shikshya Parishad. The said University was declared to be „fake‟ University in the year 2016. Thereafter the authorities demoted the appellant to the post of Programmer i.e. in Category-2 of Group „C‟ Officers in the pay scale of Rs.7500/- with applicable emoluments on the ground that he had obtained a certificate regarding his MCA qualification from a „fake‟ University. Thereafter, he challenged the said order demoting him.
2. The thrust of the argument of the learned Sr. Counsel is that despite his degree of MCA the appellant had other appropriate degrees which qualifying him to work as Assistant Director (MIS) and the said aspect has been lost sight by the learned Single Judge while deciding the matter by order dated 16.07.2024 partly allowing the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.346 of 2021 filed by the appellant challenging his demotion.
2.1. It is further contended by Mr. Mukherji, learned Sr. Counsel that the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to work as Programmer-cum-Training Officer. For convenience of reference the operative portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is quoted herein.
"9.3. Therefore, as per the considered view of this Court Petitioner has got no right with regard to his continuance as against the post of Asst. Director, MIS. Since the Petitioner was originally appointed as against the post of Programmer-cum-Training Officer vide order issued under Annexure-2, it is also the view of this Court that Page 2 of 4 while relieving the Petitioner from the post of Asst. Director, MIS vide impugned order dtd.24.12.2012, he could not have been directed to join as against the post of Programmer, which is completely a different post. Therefore, while quashing that part of the order, wherein Petitioner was directed to join as against the post of Programmer in the impugned order dtd.24.12.2020 under Annexure-12, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to allow the Petitioner to continue as against his original post of Programmer-cum-Training Officer, Keonjhar or any vacancy available in any other district. Such a fresh order be passed within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party is directed to intimate this order to Opp. Party No. 2 to do the needful."
2.2. It is submitted that the post in which the appellant worked prior to getting promotion to the post of Assistant Director (MIS) was Programmer-cum-Training Officer that was evidently in the Group „C‟ Category-1.
3. At this stage, having gone through the orders passed earlier we find that by the Coordinate Bench by order dated 25.09.2024 had observed that the learned AGA accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. On perusal of the judgment of the writ petition, it is apparent that before the learned Single Judge, the opposite party no.3 was not represented by the learned AGA but by the learned Sr. Advocate Mr. P.K. Mohanty along with Advocate Ms. K.T. Mudali.
4. We therefore think it appropriate to issue notice to respondent nos.3 and 4 by speed post with A.D., requisites for which be filed within five working days.
Apart from taking notice as directed by speed post, learned Advocate on record for the appellant Ms. Mukherji shall also serve Page 3 of 4 copies on Mr. Pronoy Mohanty, learned associate of Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Sr. Advocate, who had appeared in the writ petition.
I.A. No.6119 of 2024 and I.A. No.1898 of 2025
5. Issue notice to the respondent nos.3 and 4 as above. One set of process fee and postal requisites shall be accepted for issuance of notice by Speed Post as above.
Learned Advocate on record Ms. Mukherji for the appellant shall serve extra copies of the I.A.(s) on Mr. Pronoy Mohanty, learned Advocate on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4.
6. List on 28.10.2025.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Radha/Gs Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RADHARANI JENA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Sep-2025 11:50:48 Page 4 of 4