A retired Wireman challenged the promotion of a junior-ranked colleague to Electric Mechanic, arguing his longer service as Assistant A/C Operator was ignored. The Court held objections to the gradation list should have been raised when published; a belated challenge cannot be entertained, and promotion is not an absolute right. Writ dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUT TACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22650 of 2019
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950).
Sailendra Kumar Das
…. Petitioner(s)
-versus-
…. State of Odisha and Others Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode : For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. K. Mohanty, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. T. K .Pattnaik, ASC Mr. Devasis Mohapatra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-22.07.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -24.09.2024
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks an order from this Court to quash the impugned order dated 25.09.2019. Additionally, the Petitioner requests that his case for promotion to the post of Electric Mechanic be considered, along with the release of all pending servicerelated and financial benefits, as he has since retired from service.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Page 1 of 6
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUT TACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
Page 2 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUT TACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26
4. Per contra , learned counsel for the Opp. Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
Page 3 of 6
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUT TACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26
IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and upon careful perusal of the documents submitted before this Court, it is evident that a gradation list was duly prepared prior to the convening of the Departmental Promotion Committee, wherein the petitioner was placed at serial No. 07, while Opposite Party No. 4 was ranked at serial No. 03. The pertinent question now before this Court is whether the petitioner, having previously raised no objection to the gradation list, can now validly challenge the promotion granted to Opposite Party No.4.
6. In order to deal with the instant issue this Court can refer to the case of S.B. Dogra (supra) wherein the Supreme Court dealt with a similar issue and held that “.. If the employee concerned did not file his representation within the period prescribed after the date of the publication of the provisional gradation list, then his representation should have been rejected outright. It is erroneous to contend that the employee should have waited for filing his representation or objection until the final gradation list was published .”
7. In this regard, the Supreme Court, in Chief Medical Officer v. Khadeer Khadri2 , observed that when a petitioner is given an opportunity to raise objections but fails to do so, any subsequent attempt to seek correction of records at a later stage cannot be regarded as bona fide.
1 (1992) 4 SCC 455.
2 1999 SCC OnLine SC 908.
Page 4 of 6
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUT TACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26
8. Drawing a parallel from the aforementioned judicial precedents to the present case, it becomes evident that the petitioner ought to have raised an objection at the time the gradation list was prepared. Raising such an objection only after the promotion has been granted is belated and cannot be entertained at this stage.
9. It is a well-settled principle that no government servant can assert a right to promotion, as the Constitution does not lay down specific criteria for filling promotional positions. The method of filling such vacancies is determined by the Legislature or the executive, based on the nature of the employment and the responsibilities associated with the post. Courts are not empowered to review or assess whether the policy for promotion effectively selects the 'best candidates,' except on the narrow ground of violation of the principle of equal opportunity enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution.
10. In this regard, the Supreme Court, in the case of Ajit Singh (II) and ors.
3 (1999) 7 SCC 209.
Page 5 of 6
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUT TACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26
in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word 'employment' being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16(1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be "considered" for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion/ which is his personal right.”
11. In the present case, the Petitioner has been duly considered for promotion, having been included in the gradation list. However, the ultimate decision regarding promotion rests within the discretion of the Departmental Promotion Committee, which holds the authority to determine eligibility for promotion. The Petitioner, therefore, cannot assert a claim to promotion as an absolute right.
12. Accordingly, as the Writ petition is devoid of merit, it stands dismissed
13. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th Sept., 2024/
Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who raised no objection to the gradation list can later challenge promotion based on it.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.B. Dogra v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.Relied on¶6
(1992) 4 SCC 455 · Who else cites this
Chief Medical Officer v. Khadeer KhadriRelied on¶7
1999 SCC OnLine SC 908 · Who else cites this
Ajit Singh (II) and ors. v. State of PunjabRelied on¶10
(1999) 7 SCC 209 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sailendra Kumar Das
State of Odisha
Brahmananda Swain
S.K. Panigrahi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
