Orissa High Court
Sasmita Mohpatra vs ) State Of Orissa ..... Opposite Parties on 2 July, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.17608 of 2025
Sasmita Mohpatra ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Shashi Bhusan Jena
-versus-
1) State Of Orissa ..... Opposite Parties
2) D.g. And I.g. Of Police, Odisha Represented By Adv. -
3) Special Secretary To Govt., Home Mr. D.Lenka, A.G.A.
Dept., Odisha
4) Legal Rememberance And Addl.
Secretary, Law Dept., Odisha
5) Directorate Of Public Prosecution,
Odisha
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
02.07.2025
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 of Odisha. Perused
the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"Under the abovementioned facts and circumstances of
the case, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to
issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs
directing the opp.parties to promote the petitioner to the post
of Deputy Director of Prosecution w.e.f 9.4.2025 by
convening a review DPC.
And further be pleased to direct The Opp.Parties to grant
him all consequential and service benefits.
Or pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem think fit and proper."
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
present Petitioner, who is working as Public Prosecutor, Mayurbhanj,
being aggrieved by non-consideration of her case for promotion, has
approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. He further
contended that due to non-availability of PAR for the year 2020-2021
the case of the Petitioner was not considered by the D.P.C. for
promotion to the post of Deputy director of Prosecution, which is a
Grade-A post. He further contended that in the meantime the PAR is
not available with the D.P.C., but hardcopy part-I & II filed. In such
view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner further
contended that the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-9
dated 09.06.2025 should be allowed since the Petitioner is otherwise
eligible for such promotion and her case should have been considered
by the Opposite Parties for promotion.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate favour the State on
the other hand submitted that although he has no instruction in the
matter, however on a careful reading of the pleadings made in the
Writ Petition, it appears that the Petitioner has approached this Court
being aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite Parties in considering
the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy
Director, Prosecution. He further contended that in the event the
Petitioner is otherwise eligible and the case of the Petitioner was not
considered by the D.P.C. on the ground that the PAR was not
available and considering the petitioner's contention that the hard
copy of PAR is now being supplied, learned Additional Standing
Counsel submitted that he has no objection if this Court directs the
Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner in accordance
with law within a stipulated period of time.
6. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, on a
careful examination of the documents annexed to the Writ Petition,
further on consideration of the grievance of the Petitioner that her
case has not been considered on the ground that PAR of the
Petitioner for the year 2020-2021 was not available before the
D.P.C., this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at
the stage of admission by directing the Opposites Parties to consider
the representation of the petitioner for promotion under Anexure-9 by
reconvening a review DPC, preferably within a period of eight weeks
from today, and the PAR of the Petitioner, which is available with the
Opposite Parties, be forwarded to the DPC. In such eventually, the
DPC shall take a decision in consonance with the applicable Rules
within a period of four weeks from the date such review DPC is
convened. The decision of the review DPC be communicated to the
Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
7. It is open to the Petitioner to file any judgment in support of
her contention before the Opposite Parties which shall be duly
considered by the Opposite Parties at the time of considering the case
of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director,
Prosecution.
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: OHC Page 3 of 3.
