Balakrishna Behera Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶17

The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer :

¶18

“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is humbly therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs by directing the Opp.Parties more particularly Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to Odisha Revenue Service (ORS) Group-B Service by way of Review

¶19

Page 1 of 5.

¶20

DPC and issue order of promotion to the post of Odisha Revenue Service (Group-B) for the recruitment year 2022 from the date when his juniors have given promotion as per Annexure-7 dated 0703.2024.

¶21

And further be pleased to give all consequential service benefits ;

¶22

Or pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper;”

¶23

It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk on 05.08.2009 in the Office of the Collector, Kandhamal, Opposite Party no.4. While continuing as such, he was promoted to the post of Revenue Inspector on 31.03.2010 and posted at Tumudibandha Tahsil. On 02.06.2021, considering the performance of the Petitioner, he was promoted to the post of Revenue Supervisor and is continued as such in the Office of the Tahsildar, Chakapada. While the matter stood thus, on 16.09.2023, the Secretary, Board of Revenue, Odisha vide his letter 16.09.2023 circulated to all the R.D.Cs., IGR, Odisha, Director, Land Records Survey and Settlement Odisha sought for names of the Officers for their promotion to the posts under ORS Group-B cadre for the recruitment year 2022. He further mentioned that there are 151 number of posts of Officers under ORS Group B for the recruitment year 2022. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that pursuant to the letter dated 16.09.2023, although the name of the Petitioner along with other eligible Officers were recommended for promotion to the post of ORS Group B cadre, however while considering the case of other similarly placed persons, the case of the Petitioner has not been considered by the

¶24

Page 2 of 5.

¶25

Selection Committee. Accordingly, the Petitioner was not given promotion although the Petitioner has the requisite eligibility for such post. He further contended that the Officers who are junior to the Petitioner, as shown in the common gradation list, have been given promotion in the meantime ignoring the just and proper case of the Petitioner. He further contended that ventilating his grievance the Petitioner has approached the Tahsildar, Chakapada for redressal of his grievance. The Tahsildar, Chakapada vide his letter dated 28.10.2024 has forwarded the case of the Petitioner to the Collector, Kandhamal, Phulbani, Opposite Party No.4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted that the recommendation of the Tahsildar, Chakapada is still pending before the Collector and he has not forwarded the same to the appropriate government for promotion of the Petitioner to the post of ORS (Group-B) Cadre. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite Party No.4, the Petitioner has approached this court by filing the present Writ Petition.

¶26

On the other hand learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that he has no instruction in the matter. He further contended that the documents annexed to the Writ Petition reveal that the case of the Petitioner was recommended initially for promotion to the post of ORS Group-B cadre, however, it appears that the Petitioner has not been given promotion as he was not selected by the Selection Committee for such promotion. He further contended that the grievance of the Petitioner has already been recommended to the Collector as is evident from the letter under Annexure-11 to the Writ Petition. In such view of the matter learned Additional Standing

¶27

Page 3 of 5.

¶28

Counsel submitted that he has no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner keeping in view his eligibility subject to availability of the post within a stipulated period of time.

¶29

Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, on a careful consideration of the submissions made and further keeping in view the background facts of the case as well as the documents filed along with the Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that the grievance of the Petitioner is required to be examined by the competent authority on the factual background of the present case. Accordingly, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the Collector, Opposite Party No.4, to forward the grievance of the Petitioner, in the event the same is pending with him, to Opposite Party No.1, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. It is further directed that on receipt of the forwarding letter from the Collector, Opposite Party No.4, the Opposite Party No.1 shall consider the case of the Petitioner strictly in terms of the Rules keeping in view the common gradation list and pass necessary order in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of letter from the Collector, Opposite Party No.4. While considering the case of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.1 shall keep in view the seniority of the Petitioner and the fact that the juniors have been given promotion. Additionally, the Opposite Party No.1 shall take into consideration the documents under Annexure-3 series i.e. recommendation of the Committee in favour of the Petitioner. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party no.1 be

¶30

Page 4 of 5.

¶31

communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such decision.

¶32

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)

¶33

Judge

¶34

RKS

¶35

Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5.