Union Of India And Others vs Ajit Narayan Mohapatra
2023 Latest Caselaw 176 Ori

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                       W.A. No. 454 of 2020

             Union of India and Others            ....           Appellants
                              Mr. Gyanaloka Mohanty, Central Govt. Counsel
                                       -versus-
             Ajit Narayan Mohapatra               ....          Respondent
                                                                     None


             CORAM:
             THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
                                           ORDER

Order No.                                 04.01.2023
            I.A. No. 924 of 2020

02. 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 176 days in filing the writ appeal is condoned. The application is accordingly, disposed of.

W.A. No.454 of 2020

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7th January, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No.371 of 2006 filed by the Respondent.

3. In the said writ petition, the Respondent had challenged a letter dated 14th February, 2006 declining promotion to the Respondent to the post of ADIG of CISF with effect from the date when his Junior in the cadre of Senior Commandant was given promotion.

4. Apparently, during the period of review of the CCRs although the Respondent had got the grading of 'very good' in each of the years, in one year i.e. 2002-03 he was graded as 'good' and that was sought to be relied upon to deny him the promotion.

5. As noted by the learned Single Judge the down grading from 'very good' to 'good' was not communicated to the Respondent and therefore, it was held that it could not have relied upon to deny him the promotion. The learned Single Judge referred to the decision in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725 and Anil Kumar v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 276 where the legal position that an un-communicated adverse entry in the CCR cannot be relied upon, is well settled.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant, the Court is not persuaded that the impugned order of the learned Judge suffers from any legality which warrants interference.

7. Consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(M.S.Raman) Judge S.K. Jena/Secy.