Rajkishore Naik vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2663 Ori

Orissa High Court

Rajkishore Naik vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 16 January, 2025

Author: S.K. Panigrahi

Bench: S.K. Panigrahi

                                         // 1 //




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          W.P.(C) No.30632 of 2024
        Rajkishore Naik                        ....            Petitioner(s)
                                                       Mr. Manas Pati, Adv.
                                     -versus-
        State of Odisha & Ors.            ....              Opposite Parties
                                                     Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC

                CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order                            ORDER
No.                             16.01.2025

04. 1. These matters are taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with

the following prayer:

"The petitioner therefore prays that your lordships may graciously be pleased to quash the promotion order dated 26.09.2024 under Annexure-2, so far as private Opp. parties No. 4 to 28 and direct the Opp. Parties to consider for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police(Armed) from the date juniors i.e. private Opp. parties no. 4 to 28 have been promoted by the Opp. party no. 3 vide order dated 26.09.2024 under Annexure-2, by convening a review DPC with all consequential service and financial benefits taking into consideration Annexure- 3,5,6,7&8 within stipulated time.

And pass such order/ directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."

// 2 //

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Court has

earlier decided the similar issue in the judgment dated 24.07.2024

passed in W.P.(C) No.12516 of 2020 (Lalit Kumar Nayak -vrs.-

State of Orissa & Ors.). Hence, he submits that this Writ Petition

may be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the

case of Lalit Kumar Nayak -vrs.- State of Orissa & Ors. (supra).

5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that he has

no objection, if this matter is disposed of in the light of the

judgment passed in the case of Lalit Kumar Nayak -vrs.- State

of Orissa & Ors. (supra).

6. On perusal of the records and the judgment passed in the case

of Lalit Kumar Nayak -vrs.- State of Orissa & Ors. (supra), it

appears that similar issue has already been decided by this Court

in the said judgment which was disposed of on 24.07.2024. The

ordering portion of the said judgment is as follows:

"5. Heard the Learned Counsels for both parties and meticulously examined the documents submitted before this Court. As per Rule 11 of the Orissa District Revenue Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983, promotions to Revenue Inspectors are based on merit, suitability, and seniority among Amins and Assistant Revenue Inspectors. They need to have at least five years of service and have passed required departmental exams/tests.

6. Furthermore, the Orissa Civil Services (Criteria For Promotion) Rules, 1992 state that promotions are based on merit, suitability, and seniority, with the select list arranged

// 3 //

by seniority. The 2022 amendment clarifies that SC/ST candidates promoted or recruited on their merit and placed above unreserved candidates will fill unreserved vacancies and not be counted towards the reserved quota.

7. Now, let us peruse the relevant judicial precedents that elucidate this issue. In the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India1 the Apex Court, while referencing the intent of Article 16(4) of the Constitution opined that "In this connection it is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates."

8. In the case of R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab2, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court addressed the issue of appointments, promotions, and the use of roster points in relation to reservations. It held in para 5 as under:

"When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken that the posts shown at the reserve points are to be filled from amongst the members of reserve categories and the candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered for the reserve posts. On the other hand, the reserve category candidates can compete for the non-reserve posts and in the event of their appointment to the said posts their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation. Article 16(4) of

AIR 1993 SC 477.

(1995) 2 SCC 745

// 4 //

the Constitution of India permits the State Government to make any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizen which, in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the Services under the State."

9. Similarly, in the case of Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan3, the Apex Court has held that when calculating the number of posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, candidates from these categories who are selected or promoted based on merit (rather than reservation rules) should not be counted as reserved category candidates.

10. This jurisprudential position has been emphatically reinforced by the Allahabad High Court in the case of UP Power Corporation Limited v. Nitin Kumar4 where it held that "..where a candidate is meritorious enough to be placed within the zone of selected candidates independent of any claim of reservation and purely on the basis of the merit of the candidate, the candidate ought not to be relegated to a seat against the reserved category. The simple reason for this principle is that reservation is a process by which a certain number of posts or seats is carved out for stipulated categories such as OBC, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Unreserved seats do not constitute a reservation for candidates belonging to categories other than the reserved categories. An unreserved post or seat is one in which every individual irrespective of the category to which the person belongs can compete in open merit."

11. Likewise, in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.5, the Allahabad High Court, while deliberating on

(1995) 6 SCC 684

(2015) All LJ 162.

2007 (2) ADJ 150 (DB).

// 5 //

the issue of 'open competition with general candidates,' articulated its position in paragraph 53 as follows:

"53.In a selection which can be termed as open competition with general category candidates, the candidature of the reserved category candidates as well as the general category candidates is to be tested on the same merit and if in that case a reserved category candidate succeeds in the open competition with general category candidates, he would be placed amongst the general category candidates."

12. Thus, no law mandates reservation for general category candidates in public employment. Consequently, the issue of reserved category candidates occupying or being selected for the general seats does not arise. Since the concept of reservation does not apply to general category candidates, the notion of them having "fixed seats" is inherently flawed.

13. Furthermore, numerous judgments have consistently affirmed that if an individual meets the prescribed merit criteria, there is no justification for preventing them from being recruited or promoted to unreserved positions. The relaxations provided are solely to ensure that reserved category candidates have a level playing field, which aligns with the intent of Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution.

14. Upon scrutinizing the aforementioned facts in conjunction with the judicial precedents, it can be conclusively inferred that the clarification issued by the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Odisha, on 11.01.2019 is devoid of legal soundness.

15. The denial of promotion on the premise that there exists an "excess number of reserved category candidates"

represents a profoundly erroneous interpretation of the

// 6 //

prevailing laws and inflicts egregious injustice upon meritorious candidates from the reserved category.

16. In the present case, the Petitioner, having completed five years of service as an Amin and successfully passed the requisite departmental examination in accordance with ODRS Rules, is unequivocally eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector. Denying him promotion solely on the basis of his reserved category status constitutes a violation of his right to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the of the Constitution India."

7. Accordingly, the Inspector General of Police (Personnel),

Odisha, Cuttack/Opposite Party No.3 is hereby directed to re-

evaluate their promotion policies and promulgate appropriate

rules to ensure the advancement of meritorious candidates,

irrespective of their reservation status within one month from

the date junior got such promotion.

8. Accordingly, all the Writ Petition is disposed of being allowed.

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Sumitra

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack