Orissa High Court
Jagannatha Bag vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 18 April, 2023
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.C(OAC) No.816 of 2015
Jagannatha Bag .... Petitioner
Ms. A.K. Dei, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. D.K. Mohanty, A.S.C
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
18.04.2023 Order No
6. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Ms. A.K. Dei, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order of reversion passed vide Office order dated 28.02.2015 under Annexure-11.
3.1. The case of the Petitioner is that in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal on 15.05.2013 in O.A. No.288 of 2010, the authorities concerned undertook a review D.P.C and on being found suitable, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Tracer vide office Order dated 09.02.2015 under Annexure-8.
3.2. It is contended that even though such an order was passed in compliance of the order passed by the // 2 // Tribunal, but while continuing in his promotion post after joining on 10.02.2015, the Petitioner was reverted to his former post of Khalasi vide the impugned order dated 28.02.2015 and that too without issuing any notice and without following the principle of natural justice.
3.3. Ms.A.K. Dei, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that since while complying the order passed by the Tribunal, the Petitioner on being found suitable, was given promotion to the Post of Tracer vide order under Annexure-8, there was no occasion to revert him to his former post of Khalasi vide the impugned order under Annexure-
11. It is accordingly contended that the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4. Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned A.S.C on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that while considering the case of the Petitioner since the Departmental Promotion Committee did not take into consideration the case of other eligible employees for their promotion to the post of Tracer, it was felt necessary to revert the Petitioner to his former post due to such non-observance of the official procedure for filling up the base level vacant post in the light of the recommendation of the Committee headed by the Development-Commissioner-cum-Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Finance Department Resolution No.22764 dated 15.05.1997. It is also Page 2 of 4 // 3 // contended that after reverting the Petitioner vide the impugned order at Annexure-11, Opp. Party No.3 vide his letter dated 10.02.2015 has sought for necessary permission to fill up the post of Tracer. It is accordingly contended that since while considering the case of the Petitioner, the D.P.C did not take into consideration the case of other eligible employees, the Petitioner was rightly reverted vide the impugned order at Annexure-11.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that claiming of extension of the benefit of promotion, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.288 of 2010. The Tribunal vide order dated 15.05.2013 disposed of the said matter with the following order.
"Admittedly, the applicant has requisites qualification of Tracer as per Annexure-3, though such qualification has been acquired during service without permission of the competent authority as submitted in the counter. Not taking permission for acquiring such permission cannot be a valid ground for non-accepting his qualifications and deeming him ineligible. Moreover, austerity measures referred to were not in force after 2008. Hence, the government respondents are directed to take steps to convene Recruitment/promotion Board for filling of posts of tracer and to advertise such post so that the applicant is allowed to appear in the said test. The overage of the applicant be condoned as per Rule 52 of the Odisha Service Code, if necessary and the applicant given preference as per rules only vis-a-vis other candidates if his merit is equal to other selected candidates."
6. It is found that while complying the order passed by the Tribunal, the Petitioner was extended with the Page 3 of 4 // 4 // benefit of promotion to the post of Tracer vide order dated 09.02.2015 under Annexure-8. Pursuant to the said order, the Petitioner joined in his promotional post on 10.02.2015 as reflected under Annexures-9 & 10. But the ground of reversion that has been taken by the Opp. Parties in the counter, is not the ground indicated in the impugned order at Annexure-11. Therefore, the plea taken by the Opp. Parties in the counter that due to non-consideration of the case of similarly situated persons, the Petitioner is reverted vide the impugned order at Annexure-11, cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahinder Singh Gill & Another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner of India & Others.
7. It is also found from the record that prior to reverting the Petitioner vide the impugned order, the Petitioner was never issued with a show-cause nor any opportunity of hearing was given to him. Therefore, in view of such material irregularity so found in the impugned order, this Court is inclined to quash the same. While quashing the impugned order at Annexure-11, this court directs Opp. party No.3 to restore the order passed at Annexure-8 and allow the Petitioner to continue in his promotional post forthwith.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Page 4 of 4