Dr. Biswabahanu vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2025 Latest Caselaw 1011 Ori

Orissa High Court

Dr. Biswabahanu vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 8 July, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             WP(C) No.18061 of 2025
            Dr. Biswabahanu                  .....    Petitioner
            Samantasinghara
                                                                 Represented By Adv.
                                                                 - Biswabihari
                                                                 Mohanty

                                             -versus-
            1) State Of Odisha                          .....       Opposite Parties
            2) Director, A.h And Vs, Cuttack                    Represented By Adv. -
            3) Orissa Public Service Commission,                Mr.D.N.Lenka, AGA
            Cuttack

                                  CORAM:
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                                MOHAPATRA
                                   ORDER

08.07.2025

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. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

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

"Under the above circumstances it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in appropriate nature directing the Opp.Parties No.1 to consider the Petitioner along with others for promotion in the ensuing DPC for 78 posts of B.V.O. in O.V.S. Group A (Jr. Branch-I) from

among the VAS/AVAS in OVS Group A (Jr.Branch-II) during the year 2025 and promote him with all service and financial benefits on consideration of his representation under Annexure-9.

And other order/orders, directions as would be deemed fit and proper may kindly be issued."

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that although the Petitioner is senior to some of his colleagues and such seniority has been restored in the final published gradation list, however the Opp.Parties are contemplating conducting a D.P.C. for promotion to the post of B.V.O. The apprehension of the Petitioner is that the case of the Petitioner may not be considered by the DPC for such promotion as he was given appointment in the year 2018-19. Further, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the authorities are solely responsible for such late appointment. He further contended that it is well settled position of law that DPC, while considering the case for promotion of employees, shall take into consideration the seniority of the persons in the combined gradation list. In the present case the combined gradation list is under Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadhana Singh Dangi and Ors vs. Pinki Asati and Ors reported in (2022) 12 SCC 401, specifically at paragraph-21 of the judgment, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid emphasis on considering seniority as a criteria while giving promotion to the employees.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other

hand contended that the Petitioner has already approached Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation under Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition. Further, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that in the event no final decision has been taken on such representation, he will have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to consider and dispose of the same bin accordance with law and within a stipulated period.

6. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsels for the respective parties, on careful examination of the background facts of the present case, keeping in view the nature of grievance involved in the Writ Petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party no.1 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner dated 25.06.2025 under Annexure-9 in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadhana Singh Dangi and Ors (supra) by passing a speaking and reasoned order within four weeks. It is further made clear that every endeavour shall be made to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner before the DPC meeting is convened to consider promotion to the post of BVO. Any decision taken on the representation of the Petitioner be communicated to the Petitioner within a week from the date of such decision.

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

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

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge RKS

Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary