Madhusmita Sahani Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.6776 of 2025

Madhusmita Sahani ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Budhadev Routray, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Bhabani Shankar Rayaguru, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

17.07.2025

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶9

Heard Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as Mr. U.C. Jena, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶10

By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the D.O. Letter No.60 dated 18.01.2025 issued by the Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Further prayer has also been made to expunge the adverse remarks

¶11

Page 1 of 4.

¶12

entered in the PAR of the Petitioner for the period from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024 by the Opposite Party No.5.

¶13

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that at the time of admission of the present writ petition, this Court had passed an interim order on 23.04.2025. As per the interim order dated 24.03.2025 passed in I.A. No.3762 of 2025, it was directed that as an interim measure, any appointment to the post of Public Prosecutor (Cadre) shall be subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition. Further, it was directed that the case of the Petitioner shall be considered for participation in the DPC and in such eventuality, the outcome of such DPC proceeding in respect of the Petitioner shall be kept in a sealed cover.

¶14

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, at this juncture, referring to the I.A. No.11478 of 2025, contended that in the meantime the DPC has recommended certain names for promotion to the post of Public Prosecutor. Accordingly, Home Department, Government of Odisha issued Notification dated 21.05.2025 under Anenxure-11 to the I.A. No.11478 of 2025. As per the said Notification, 22 persons have been given promotion to the rank of Public Prosecutor on ad-hoc basis for a period of one year or till regular promotion is made in consultation with the OPSC. He further contended that such ad-hoc promotion vide Notification dated 21.05.2025 is also subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner further submitted that although the name of the Petitioner was considered by the D.P.C., however, the fate of the

¶15

Page 2 of 4.

¶16

Petitioner has been kept in a sealed covered.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further referring to the letter dated 02.07.2025 under Annexure-12 to the aforesaid I.A., submitted that in the meantime the adverse remarks against the Petitioner has already been expunged by the Government upon a due consideration of the representation submitted by the Petitioner against such adverse remarks. In view of such subsequent development, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that there is no impediment in considering the case of the Petitioner for ad-hoc promotion along with the persons who have been given promotion vide the Notification of the Government under Annexure-11 to the writ petition. He further submitted that some of the persons who have given promotion are junior to the present Petitioner. So far the present Petitioner is concerned, it is stated that her case has been considered by the DPC and such recommendation of the DPC has been kept in a sealed covered pursuant to the order passed by this Court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that he has no specific instruction with regard to any subsequent development in the matter. He further contended that in the event the adverse remarks against the Petitioner have been expunged, as is evident under Annexure-12 to the above noted I.A., and there is no other legal impediments, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion by opening the sealed cover as per law.

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on a careful consideration of the background

¶20

Page 3 of 4.

¶21

facts, further taking note of the subsequent development as has been brought on record by way of I.A. No.11478 of 2025, particularly keeping in view the expunction of adverse remarks against the Petitioner vide D.O. Letter under Annexure-12, this Court is of the view that there is no other impediment to consider the case of the Petitioner for such promotion. Moreover, it is observed that some of the juniors to the Petitioner have been given ad-hoc promotion under Annexure-11 to the I.A. No.11478 of 2025.

¶22

In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the subsequent development. In the event it is found that there is no other legal impediment, the case of the Petitioner shall be considered for promotion by opening the sealed cover and in the event the Petitioner gets the promotion, the same shall be treated from the date her juniors have been given such promotion vide the Notification under Annexure-11 to the I.A. No.11478 of 2025.

¶23