Suresh Kumar Sethi vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 453 Ori

Orissa High Court

Suresh Kumar Sethi vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 9 January, 2024

Author: A.K. Mohapatra

Bench: A.K. Mohapatra

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 W.P.(C) No.108 of 2024

                 Suresh Kumar Sethi                      ....                Petitioner
                                                              Mr. A.Mohanty,Advocate

                                              -versus-

                 State of Odisha & others                ....         Opposite Parties
                                                                   Mr. N.K.Praharaj,
                                                                             A.G.A.


                                         CORAM:

                              JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
                                        ORDER

09.01.2024 Order No.

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

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

"It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to i. Admit the Writ Application.

ii. Call for the Records.

iii. Issue rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to Show-Cause as to why the Order / VHF Message dt.04.10.2023 under Annexure-6 shall not be quashed and if the Opp. Parties did not show-cause or shows insufficient cause, iv. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ / Writs, Order / Orders, Direction / Directions thereby quashing the Order / VHF Message // 2 //

dt.04.10.2023 under Annexure-6.

V. Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ / Writs, Order / Orders, Direction / Directions directing the Opp. Parties to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Havildar pursuant to the Select List prepared Selection Committee Deliberation vide dt.13/14.01.2021 and accordingly, give promotion to the petitioner with all service benefits as due and admissible to the post of Havildar.

vi. Direct the Opp. Parties to not proceed with the Advertisement dt.04.10.2023 unless the Select List prepared by the Selection Committee Deliberation vide dt. 13/14.01.2024 is exhausted."

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner was initially appointed as a constable on 26.01.2009, after being recruited through a valid selection process. While working as such, pursuant to a fresh selection process notified on 03.01.2020, the petitioner participated in such selection process, and he was found suitable for promotion to the post of Lance Naik, and he was placed at serial No.2 of the final merit list. He further contended that after conclusion of the such selection procedure the Government abolished to the posts of Lance Naik and alternatively equal number of Havildar posts were created. While the matter stood thus, on 04.10.2023 another notification was circulated by S.P of Berhampur to fill up 32 posts of Havildar assigned to the Ganjam Police Station. The Sole grievance of the petitioner is that although the petitioner was selected in the recruitment test held in the year 2020, however the opposite parties instead of appointing the petitioner to the post of Havildar, which was created by abolition of the posts of Lance Naik, have proceeded to issue another notification for recruitment to the post to 32 numbers of post of Havildar in Ganjam District. Being aggrieved by such subsequent notification // 3 //

dated 04.10.2023 the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

5. In course of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the present petitioner is covered by the ratio laid down by this Court in Trilochan Naik's case in W.P.(C) No.26046 of 2022 decided on 07.12.2022. Referring to the aforesaid judgment under Annexure-7 to the writ application, learned counsel for the petitioner laid emphasis on Para-11 and 16 of the judgment to impress upon this Court that the waiting list prepared by the opposite parties shall remain in force till the next selection procedure is concluded. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there are vacancies and the petitioner's name having been incorporated in the earlier merit list, the case of the petitioner should have been considered before issuing the fresh notification dated 04.10.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to Para-16 of the judgment in Trilochan Naik's case wherein this Court has categorically held that, since the petitioner in that case was eligible for promotion to the rank of Havildar, subject to petitioner acquiring the DIC certificate, and applying the said principle to the facts of the present case it was contended that the petitioner was earlier found suitable and his name finds place in the merit list. So far the DIC training is concerned it appears that this Court in Trilocahn Naik's case has categorically held that the training is internal thing of the police department. Therefore, the persons who are found suitable for promotion can be sent on training as per the training program of the police department of the concerned district.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that earlier the selection process was conducted for // 4 //

promotion to the post of Lance Naik. Although the petitioner was selected for being appointed as Lance Naik, however, the post of Lance Naik having been abolished and equal number of Havildar posts were created by the State Government, the case of the petitioner could not be considered by the authorities for promotion, after the creation of the new posts pursuant to the order passed by the State Government, a fresh notification has been issued on 04.10.2023. In such view of the matter learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner cannot claim promotion on the basis of the earlier merit list which was for the post of Lance Naik and not regarding the posts of Havildar. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the writ application is devoid of merit.

7. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, this Court is of the observation that the case of the petitioner is similar to the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.199 of 2024. The only difference that was observed is that in W.P.(C) No.199 of 2024 referred to above, the petitioners were given promotion to the post of Lance Naik and subsequently they were reverted. So far the present petitioner is concerned, he was not given promotion to the post of Lance Naik despite being selected for such post. Rest of the facts in both the cases remain similar. This Court having already taken a view in the identical matter, there is no necessity to go into the merits of the matter in detail. Accordingly this Court directs that the case of the present petitioner be also considered in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.199 of 2024. Accordingly, The petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh representation taking therein all grounds available to him // 5 //

along with relevant documents before the Opposite Parties No.3. In the event such representation is filed by the petitioner, the Opposite Party No.3 is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably before the selection process pursuant to Annexure-6 is finalized. It is further directed that till such time the representation of the petitioner is finally decided by the Opposite Party No.3 the result of the selection process pursuant to Annexure-6 shall not be declared. The Opposite Party No.3 is further directed to make every endeavor to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to approach Opposite Party No.3 along with copy of today's order within a week from today. Any decision taken by the opposite party No.3 shall be communicated to the petitioner within a week from the date of taking such decision.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of.

9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi

Location: High Court of Orissa