Orissa High Court
Subhendu Bhuyan & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 2 April, 2025
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.15877 of 2024
An application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
Subhendu Bhuyan & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai,
Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. D.K. Sahoo, A.G.A.
for the State-O.Ps.
Mr. Swoyam Prabhu Jena,
Adv. for O.P. Nos.13, 23,
24 & 25
Mr. Manas Pati, Adv. for
O.P. Nos.8 to 12, 15 to 22,
27, 28 & 31
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
_____________________________________________________
Date of Hearing : 02.04.2025 | Date of Judgment: 02.04.2025
______________________________________________________
A.K. Mohapatra, J. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as
learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State-Opposite
Parties and learned counsels appearing for their respective
private-opposite parties. Perused the pleadings of the respective
parties as well as the documents annexed to such pleadings.
2. By filing the present writ application the Petitioners
have called into question the conduct of the Opposite Parties in
issuing order dated 28.06.2024 under Annexure-1 and order
dated 29.06.2024 under Annexure-2 series thereby giving
promotion to the private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 from the
post of Forest Guards to the post of Foresters without providing
any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners and the
Petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the orders under
Annexures-1 and 2 series by declaring the same to be illegal,
arbitrary and contrary to the rules and the settled principles of
law as has been established by various judicial
pronouncements. Further, the Petitioners have prayed for a
direction to the Opposite Parties to allow the Petitioners to
continue in their present posts along with retrospective service
and consequential benefits.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset
contended that the Petitioners were initially appointed as Forest
Guards on 19.08.2009. While working as such, the Petitioners
were given promotions to the post of Foresters vide order dated
01.01.2024 under Annexure-3 to the writ application. Learned
counsel for the petitioners at the outset, referring to the order
under Annexure-3, contended that pursuant to the
recommendation of the DPC in its meeting held on 22.12.2023
and without prejudice to the claims of the seniors to the
Petitioners, the Petitioners were given promotion from the post
of Forest Guards to the rank of Foresters in the Level-7 of the
Pay Matrix under ORSP Rules, 2017 with effect from the date
of their joining in the promotional post.
4. While the matter stood thus, the private-Opposite Party
Nos.8 to 32 approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.02 of
2024 challenging the order of promotion of the Petitioners
dated 01.01.2024 under Annexure-2 to the previous writ
application. The Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 filed the
previous writ application challenging the order of promotion of
the present Petitioners on the ground that the juniors to the
Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 have been given promotion
to the rank of Foresters under Annexure-3 to the writ
application. On perusal of a copy of the previous writ
application it appears that the present petitioners were arrayed
as Opposite Party Nos.8 to 22 in the previous writ application.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended
that the previous writ application preferred by the Private-
Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 was disposed of vide order dated
29.01.2024. He further contended that the previous writ
application was disposed of at the stage of admission without
even issuing any notice to the Private-Opposite Parties to the
said writ application. Learned counsel for the Petitioners
further submitted that while disposing of the said writ
application this Court, in para-6 of the order dated 29.01.2024,
has given the following direction:-
"Considering the submissions made by the
learned counsels appearing for the respective parties
and on a careful consideration of the background facts
as well as materials on record and further keeping in
view that the submission of learned counsel for the
Petitioners that while considering his case the
Opposite Parties have not taken into consideration the
order passed in Manmath Kumar Samal's case
(supra), this Court without expressing any opinion
merits of the matter deems it proper to dispose of the
writ application at the stage of admission by directing
the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the case of the
Petitioner afresh in the light of the order passed by the
Tribunal as referred to hereinabove and accordingly
dispose of the grievance of the Petitioner by passing a
speaking and reasoned order within a period of two
months from the date of communication of certified
copy of this order. It is further clarified that at the time
considering the cases of the Petitioners the Opposite
Parties shall first determine as to whether the law laid
down in Manmath Kumar Samal's case is applicable to
the facts of the Petitioners' case or not, thereafter, the
Opposite Parties shall proceed to pass necessary
orders in the cases of the Petitioners. The final
decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.3 be
communicated to the Petitioners within two weeks from
the date of taking such a decision."
6. Referring to the direction contained in para-6 of the
order dated 29.01.2024, learned counsel for the Petitioners
contended that this Court had directed the Opposite Parties to
consider the case of the Petitioners in the previous writ
application (who are Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 in the
present writ application) in terms of order passed in Manmath
Kumar Samal & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (O.A. No.701
of 2018 disposed of on 16.11.2018) by the Odisha
Administrative Tribunal, by passing a speaking and reasoned
order within a period of two months from the date of
communication of a copy of that order. He further contended
that this Court had further clarified that at the time of
considering the case of Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32, the
State-Opposite Parties shall first determine as to whether the
law laid down in Manmath Kumar Samal's case is applicable to
the facts of the Petitioners' case or not. In the event it is found
that the ratio laid down in Manmath Kumar Samal's case is
applicable to the case of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to
32, it was directed that necessary consequential orders be
passed in the case of the Petitioners.
7. The main plank of argument of Mr. Dalai, learned
counsel for the Petitioners in the present case, is that the
Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32, being aggrieved by the
order of promotion dated 01.01.2024 under Annexure-3
whereunder the Petitioners were promoted to the post of
Forester from the post of Forest Guards, approached this Court
in the previous writ application. He further contended that
although the Petitioners were the Private-Opposite Parties in
the previous writ application, however, no notice was issued to
them and that the order dated 29.01.2024 was passed behind
their backs without providing any opportunity of hearing to
them. He also contended that after the matter was remanded
back to the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, Angul
Circle, the Opposite Party No.3, the Regional Chief
Conservator of Forests, Angul Circle considered the case of the
Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 and promoted the Private-
Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 to the post of Forester. He further
contended that at the same time the Petitioners, who were
earlier promoted to the post of Forester, were reverted back to
the post of Forest Guards. Learned counsel for the Petitioners
further emphatically argued that while passing such order of
reversion, no opportunity of hearing whatsoever was provided
to the Petitioners by the Opposite Party No.3. In such view of
the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that
the order of reversion of the present Petitioners as well as the
order giving promotion to the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to
32 has been passed in gross violation of the principles of
natural justice. He further contended that the present petitioners
are seriously prejudiced by the order of reversion as well as the
order granting promotion to the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8
to 32. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners
contended that the impugned order granting promotion to the
Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 dated 28.06.2024 and
29.06.2024 under Annexures-1 and 2 series respectively are
highly illegal, arbitrary and the same are in gross violation of
the principles of natural justice and as such the same are
unsustainable in law. Accordingly, learned counsel for the
Petitioners prayed for quashing of the orders under Annexures-
1 and 2 series to the writ application.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Private-Opposite
Party Nos.8 to 32 on the other hand referred to the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of Opposite Party Nos.13, 23, 24 & 25.
Although notices were issued to other Private-Opposite Parties,
however, they have preferred not to file any counter affidavit.
However, since the issue involved in the present writ
application is similar with respect to the Private-Opposite Party
Nos.8 to 32, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Opposite
Party Nos.13, 23, 24 & 25 has been taken into consideration
while considering the stand of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8
to 32. Moreover, this Court observes that all the Private-
Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 are sailing in a same boat,
therefore, their ground has to be same. Otherwise also, the
counter affidavit filed by some of the Opposite Parties can be
considered as an affidavit in the representative capacity on
behalf of all Private-Opposite Parties.
9. Learned counsel for the Private-Opposite Party Nos.13,
23, 24 & 25 tried to justify the conduct of the Opposite Party
No.3 by referring to the order passed by this Court in the
previous writ application bearing W.P.(C) No.2 of 2024. He
also tried to justify the promotion of the Private-Opposite Party
Nos.8 to 32 by referring to the order passed by the learned
O.A.T. in O.A. No.701 of 2018 (in the matter of Manmath
Kumar Samal & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.). Learned
counsel for the Private-Opposite Party Nos.13, 23, 24 & 25
emphatically argued that the Private-Opposite Parties are
entitled to be promoted by applying the law laid down in
Manmath Kumar Samal's case and as such the Opposite Party
No.3 has not committed any illegality in the matter. Further,
referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit,
learned counsel for the Private-Opposite Party Nos.13, 23, 24
& 25 contended that the State-Opposite Party No.3 has not
committed any illegality inasmuch as the Petitioners were
reverted to their former post of Forest Guards by the Opposite
Party No.3 on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC
dated 28.06.2024 and the same was done by following the due
procedure of law. He also contended that the DPC while
considering the case of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32
also took note of the judgment of the learned O.A.T. in
Manmath Kumar Samal's case and accordingly, the
recommendation was made in favour of the Private-Opposite
Party Nos.8 to 32 for their promotion to the post of Forester. As
such, learned counsel for the Private-Opposite Party Nos.13,
23, 24 & 25 contended that the Opposite Party No.3 has not
committed any illegality in reverting the Petitioners while
giving promotion to the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 on
the basis of the recommendation of the DPC.
10. Mr.Manas Pati, learned counsel for the Private-
Opposite Party Nos.8 to 12, 15 to 22, 27, 28 & 31 submitted
before this Court that the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32
were given promotion on the basis of the recommendation of
the DPC and such recommendation was made only after
verification of the cases of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to
32. He further contended that the order passed by the learned
O.A.T. in O.A. No.701 of 2018 in Manmath Kumar Samal's
case has also been given effect to by the State-Opposite Parties
and as such the same has attained finality. Therefore, the
principles laid down in the aforesaid case by the learned
Tribunal is applicable to the case of the Private-Opposite Party
Nos.8 to 32 as they stand in a similar footing with the above
named Manmath Kumar Samal. In such view of the matter,
learned counsel for the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 12, 15
to 22, 27, 28 & 31 further contended that the State-Opposite
Party No.3 has not committed any illegality in giving
promotion to the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 and as
such the present writ application filed by the present Petitioners
is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed.
11. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate on the other hand
contended that the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 have
been given promotion by following the due procedure of law.
He further contended that it is only on the basis of the
recommendation of the DPC meeting which was held on
28.06.2024, that the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 have
been given promotion. In a similar view, the Petitioners have
been reverted back to the prior posts held by them on the basis
of the recommendation of the DPC.
12. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful analysis of the factual scenario
of the present writ application, further keeping in view the
settled legal position, this Court at the outset observes that the
main plank of argument that has been advanced by the learned
counsel for the Petitioners is that while passing the order of
reversion and giving promotion to the Private-Opposite Party
Nos.8 to 32 pursuant to the order passed by this Court on
29.01.2024 in the earlier writ application, the State-Opposite
Parties have failed to observe the principles of natural justice.
This Court on a careful examination of the order passed in the
earlier writ application dated 29.01.2024 found that the same
was disposed of at the stage of admission by directing the
State-Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioners in
the earlier writ application in the light of the law laid down by
the learned O.A.T. in Manmath Kumar Samal's case, within a
stipulated period of time. However, while passing the aforesaid
order dated 29.01.2024 this Court had made it clear that no
views were expressed on the merits of the case involved in the
previous writ application. Therefore, it stands confirmed that
while passing the aforesaid order dated 29.01.2024 neither any
notice was issued to the Private-Opposite Parties (i.e. the
Petitioners in the present writ application) nor were they given
any opportunity of hearing.
13. Similarly, this Court also observes that while
reconsidering the case of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to
32 pursuant to the order passed in the earlier writ application on
29.01.2024, although the Opposite Party No.3 passed an order
giving promotion to the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32
while reverting the present Petitioners, however, no opportunity
of hearing whatsoever was provided to the present Petitioners.
Therefore, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing
the present writ application thereby challenging the conduct of
the State-Opposite Parties in reverting them back to the post of
Forest Guards, which they were holding earlier, particularly,
prior to the order dated 29.01.2024. On a careful analysis of
order dated 29.01.2024, this Court observes that the intention
of this Court while passing such order was only to direct the
State-Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioners in
the earlier writ (who are Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 in
the present writ) in the light of the law applicable to their cases.
Therefore, the Opposite Party No.3 while considering the case
of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 should have provided
an opportunity of hearing the present Petitioners as the
Petitioners were likely to be affected adversely in the event any
order was passed by the Opposite Party No.3, after considering
the case of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32. Thus, this
Court observes that before passing an order of reversion to the
post of Forest Guards, the Petitioners were never provided an
opportunity of hearing. Ergo, it can very well be surmised that
the order of reversion under Annexures-1 and 2 series have
been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural
justice. Similarly, it is also observed that while considering the
case of the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 for promotion to
the post of Forester, after reverting the present Petitioners to
their previous posts, the Opposite Party No.3 had also not given
any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. Thus, this Court
observes that the outcome of such a proceeding which has
caused prejudice to the present Petitioners has admittedly been
passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the
aforesaid factual scenario, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that the conduct of the State-Opposite Party No.3 in
passing the orders under Annexures-1 and 2 series is illegal in
nature.
14. On a careful analysis of the factual background of the
present writ application, further keeping in view the settled
legal position, and further taking note of the fact that
admittedly the principles of natural justice have not been
followed by the Opposite Party No.3 while passing the orders
under Annexures-1 & 2 series, this Court is of the view that the
orders that have been passed in violation of a principles of
natural justice are unsustainable in law. Accordingly, this Court
has no hesitation in quashing the impugned orders under
Annexures-1 and 2 series. Accordingly, the same are hereby
quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite
Party No.3 to consider the case of the Petitioners as well as
Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 strictly in accordance with
law and by applying the principles of law decided in Manmath
Kumar Samal's case (supra), which is stated to have attained
finality in the meantime. The Opposite Party No.3 shall do well
to provide an opportunity of hearing to both the Petitioners as
well as the Private-Opposite Party Nos.8 to 32 before taking a
final decision in the matter as has been directed hereinabove. It
is open to the Petitioners as well as the Private-Opposite Party
Nos.8 to 32 to put forth their grievance before the Opposite
Party No.3 in the shape of memorandum/ representation
supported by any decision/ citation relied upon by the
respective parties, along with a certified copy of today's
judgment. The Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to conclude
the entire process within a period of three months from the date
of communication of a certified copy of today's judgment by
the parties.
15. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 02nd April, 2025/ Anil/ Jr. Steno
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 04-Apr-2025 11:27:20
