Orissa High Court
Srinibas Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opposite ... on 18 November, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.C.(OAC) Nos.2264,
2225,2258,2259,2260,2261,2262,2263,2265,2266,
2267 and 2345 of 2018
(Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India)
A.F.R. In W.P.C (OAC) No.2264/2018
Srinibas Sahoo
... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty,
Advocate.
-versus-
For Opposite Parties
: Mr. S.N.Patnaik, A.G.A
In W.P.C (OAC) No.2225/2018
Satyapriya Biswal ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 1 of 34
For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty,
Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.
In W.P.C (OAC) No.2258/2018
Bibhu Prasad Pradhan
... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.
In W.P.C (OAC) No.2259/2018
Diptiranjan Behera
... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 2 of 34
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.
In W.P.C (OAC) No.2260/2018
Tatan Kumar Das
... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.
In W.P.C (OAC) No.2261/2018
Jayanta Kumar Mohapatra ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 3 of 34
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty,
Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.
In W.P.C (OAC) No.2262/2018
Sarojkanta Sahu
... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.
In W.P.C (OAC) No.2263/2018
Sudhakar Khuntia
... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 4 of 34
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.
In W.P.C (OAC) No.2265/2018
Atish Patel
... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.
In W.P.C (OAC) No.2266/2018
Manas Ranjan Moharana
... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 5 of 34
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.
In W.P.C (OAC) No.2267/2018
Aswini Kumar Majhi
... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.
In W.P.C (OAC) No.2345/2018
S. Yudhistir Reddy
... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
W.P.(C) No.2264 of 2018 and batch Page 6 of 34
For Petitioner : Mr.B. B. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, A.G.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
18.11.2025.
Sashikanta Mishra,J. All these Writ Petitions involve
common facts and being heard together are disposed
of by this common judgment.
Case of the Petitioner
2. For brevity and convenience, W.P.(OAC)
No.2264/2018 is treated as the lead case for
consideration of facts. The prayer of the petitioner in
the said Writ Petition is as follows;
"In view of the facts mentioned in Para- 6 above, the
applicant prays for the following relief(s).
i) The Original Application be allowed.
ii) Necessary Direction be made to the respondents to
assign appropriate seniority in the Gradation list of
Dy. Subedar strictly in terms of existing
Rules/orders governing the field by taking into
consideration the comparative merit position as
reflected in Notification of OSSC dated 02.04.2013
and the Rules in vogue forthwith or within a time
stipulation;
iii) And moreover, this Hon'ble Court may graciously
be pleased to direct the Respondents to give the
applicant appropriate placement above all those
Promotee Havildars Majors who were promoted
subsequent to the appointment of the applicant in
the gradation list of Dy. Subedar Sub-Inspector of
Police (Armed) strictly in terms of Rules orders in
vogue by finalizing the tentative gradation list
appropriately within the time stipulation;
iv) This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to
quash the Gradation lists prepared in the rank of
Dy. Subedar/A.S.I/(Armed) under Annexure-8
Series and direct the respondents to recast the
same appropriately by reflecting the seniority a son
31.08.2016 in f terms of the Merit Position reflected
in the comparative Merit List dated 02.04.2013 of
OSSC for the purpose and by placing the petitioner
above all the Havildar Majors who were promoted
subsequent to joining of the petitioner as Dy.
Subedars on 24.06.2013.
And pass any other order orders or
direction/directions be issued so as to give
complete relief to the applicant."
3. Basing on the requisition of D.G. and I.G. of
Police, Odisha, Cuttack, DGP (Fire) and DGP (Prisons),
the Odisha Staff Selection Commission (OSSC)
published an advertisement on 08.4.2011 for
Combined Competitive Examination for recruitment to
Group-C Posts in Odisha Police Service, Odisha Prison
Service and Odisha Fire Service, 2011. 553 posts were
notified in different categories including 144 posts of
Deputy Subedar of Police. Out of said posts, 39 were
reserved for SEBC. Since such reservation was beyond
the limit of 50%, some persons having approached the
erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal, an interim
order was passed on 21.3.2012 by the Tribunal
directing publication of the select list confining the
reservations it to 50%. As such, a select list was
published on 06.9.2012 for 122 Deputy Subedars,
which included 16 candidates of SEBC category. The
candidates so selected were appointed by order dated
8.9.2012 and sent for training.
The Tribunal disposed of the pending original
applications by order dated 3.10.2012 whereby, the
interim order dtd.21.3.2012 was vacated. The OSSC
thereafter published a second select list on 23.3.2013
in continuation of the select list dated 06.9.2012 for
remaining vacancies including 26 more candidates
under SEBC category against the post of Deputy
Subedar. The Petitioner's name found place in the said
list. Again, on 02.4.2013 the OSSC published a
composite merit list (revised list) of 555 persons,
wherein the Petitioner was placed at Sl.No.263 and
opposite party No.7 at Sl. No.283. The Petitioner was
appointed vide order dtd.27.4.2013 and was sent for
training. Be it noted that the post of Deputy Subedar
has since been redesignated as S.I. of Police (Armed).
4. While the matter stood thus, the A.I.G., Police
(Personnel), vide Notification dtd.27.9.2016 published
a tentative gradation list of Deputy Subedars for the
year 2016, reflecting the position as on 31.8.2016. In
the said list, the Petitioner was placed at Sl. No.306.
The Petitioner came to know that his batchmates,
being selectees of the selection made pursuant to the
advertisement dtd.8.4.2011 and included in the
revised select list dtd.2.4.2013, had been divided into
two groups on the basis of their appointment, ignoring
the fact that they were all selected pursuant to the
same advertisement, through the same selection
process and had been included in the final select list.
The batchmates of the petitioner who were selected as
per the first batch select list dtd.6.9.2012 were
assigned seniority treating their date of service as
21.9.2012, whereas the Petitioner, who was issued
with the appointment order dtd.27.4.2013 with
reference to the revised select list dtd.2.4.2013, was
assigned seniority by treating his date of appointment
as 01.5.2013 i.e. the date on which he was deputed to
training. The persons selected as per the first select list
were placed from Sl.Nos.182 to 215 of the gradation
list, whereas the Petitioner was at Sl. No.306. The
petitioner's grievance is that in the revised select list
dtd.2.4.2013, some of the persons who were placed
much below him were placed above him in the
provisional gradation list. The persons placed at Sl.
Nos.194 to 215 were placed below him in the revised
select list dtd.2.4.2013, whereas the Petitioner was
placed at Sl. No.263. In the revised select list, these
persons were placed at Sl. No.283 downwards. Such
placement, according to the petitioner is completely
illegal and in violation of the Odisha Police Service
(Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed) Order, 2012 (for short
"Order, 2012") as amended in 2016.
5. It is the further grievance of the Petitioner that
some of the Havildar Majors, who were considered for
promotion to the rank of Deputy Subedar on 20.6.2013
and were appointed as such vide Notification dated
21.6.2013, were en masse placed above him even
though he had been appointed earlier i.e. on 27.4.2013
and had joined training on 01.5.2013. These Havildar
Majors were placed from Sl.Nos.216 to 274, making
them en masse senior to the direct recruits including
the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, fixation of
inter-se seniority of these Havildar Majors above him
and his batchmates, who were appointed vide order
dtd.27.4.2013 by treating them as recruits of 2013 is
illegal.
6. The tentative gradation list was never brought to
the knowledge of the petitioner immediately after its
publication. The Petitioner having subsequently come
to know about it, submitted his grievance in the form
of a representation, but the same was not considered.
The tentative gradation list was finalized by order
dtd.14.8.2019 without considering the objection raised
by the Petitioner against the inter-se fixation of
seniority. In the final gradation list so published, the
petitioner is placed at Sl. No.380 and Opp. Party No.6
at Sl. No.216 and Opp. Party No.7 at 194. In the
gradation list prepared on 22.10.2021, the petitioner
was assigned seniority at Sl. No.167 whereas Opp.
Party No.7 was assigned Sl. No.34.
7. Highlighting these facts, the petitioner had
originally approached the erstwhile Odisha
Administrative Tribunal seeking the relief as already
quoted herein before. Said original application was
transferred to this Court and registered as the present
Writ Petition.
Case of State authorities
8. The stand of the State as reflected in its counter
and further affidavit filed in the case is that initially,
144 vacancies of Deputy Subedar were notified
including 39 posts in SEBC category. Some of the
applicants having filed O.A. Nos.835(C) of 2012 and
874 (C)/2012 challenging the reservation of candidates
beyond 50%, the OAT, vide interim order dated
21.3.2012 directed the authorities to proceed with the
selection process and also to issue appointment orders
in favour of the selected candidates with the rider that
the reservation shall not exceed 50% of the total
vacancies. Accordingly, the result was published on
06.9.2012 for 121 posts of Deputy Subedars including
16 posts for SEBC candidates. The name of the
Petitioner did not find place in the said select list.
Subsequently, the O.A. was disposed of by the
Tribunal vide order dtd.03.10.2012, whereby the
Tribunal did not interfere with the advertisement as
regards 27% reservation in favour of S.E.B.C.
candidates. The interim order also stood vacated. At
this stage, one Susanta Rout filed O.A.
No.3787(C)/2012 before the Tribunal with prayer to be
selected against the remaining 15.75% vacancy under
SEBC category. By order dated 21.12.2012, the
Tribunal disposed of the matter directing the
authorities to proceed in accordance with law, keeping
in view the terms of the advertisement. Clarification of
the Government was sought, which being received on
23.3.2013, the result of the remaining 87 candidates
i.e. 15.75% vacancy was published. After allocation of
the posts, OSSC vide notice dated 02.4.2013 published
revised selection list of 555 candidates of different
services. The Petitioner and other candidates were
appointed accordingly and deputed to undergo training
w.e.f. 01.5.2013. As some candidates did not join, a
revised select list was also published on 09.10.2013.
9. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Subedar
and his recruitment was made as per the Odisha
Special Armed Police Service (Method of Recruitment
and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2000 (for short
"Rules 2000"). The tentative gradation list was
prepared following Rule 16 of the OSAP Cadre Rules,
2000 taking into account the date of promotion/date of
joining in the rank of Deputy Subedar. As regards the
grievance of the Petitioner, it is stated that in the first
batch, only 16 SEBC candidates were selected. The
Petitioner was appointed in the second batch. The
Deputy Subedars whose names appeared in the
tentative gradation list above the petitioner but were
placed below him under the composite merit list
(revised list) dtd.2.4.2013 belong to SC, ST and Ex-
serviceman category. They were placed appropriately
taking into account their date of undergoing training
i.e. on 12.9.2012. As such, no one from S.E.B.C.
category appointed in the first batch was shown below
the name of the Petitioner in the composite merit list.
10. Out of 121 candidates, who were selected as
Deputy Subedars vide Notification dtd.6.9.2012, 46
were upgraded to the rank of S.I. and 19 to the rank of
Sergeant vide select list dtd.2.4.2013. The inter se
seniority of such S.Is and Sergeants was fixed
according to the date of their appointment as S.I. and
Sergeant. The Government has followed the principle
that all candidates appointed to the post by promotion
shall en-bloc be senior to the candidates appointed by
way of direct recruitment. Said principle is invoked in
the recruitment rules for different cadres of Police
Department including Deputy Subedars. Accordingly,
all Havildar Majors promoted to the rank of Deputy
Subedar in the year 2013 were placed above the direct
recruits in the same calendar year and the inter se
seniority of all the Petitioners in tentative gradation list
was fixed taking into account their date of joining
following the above principle. The Odisha Police
Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of
Service of Sub-Inspector of Police) (Armed) Order, 2012
has been repealed vide the Odisha Police Service
(Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Sub-Inspector of Police) (Armed) Order, 2021 and
further amended on 03.9.2021. As per order 3(a) of the
said Order, the posts of Drill S.I. of Police, Sergeants
and Deputy Subedar have been merged and re-
designated as S.I. of Police (Armed). Order 25(6) of the
said Order provides the principle for fixation of inter-se
seniority to the effect that all promotees during the
calendar year shall be en-bloc senior to the direct
recruits. Accordingly, the tentative gradation list was
prepared on 13.5.2021 and objections were notified.
Objections were received from different police
establishments, which being complied, the final
gradation list has been published on 22.10.2021,
wherein the Petitioner is placed at Sl. No.167.
11. It is further stated that a Writ Petition, being
W.P.(C) No.9216/2013 has been filed before this Court
challenging reservation of posts i.e. 27% for SEBC
category in the select list prepared by OSSC, which is
sub-judice.
Submissions
12. Heard Mr. B.B.Mohanty, learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. S.N.Patnaik,
learned Addl. Government for the State.
13. Mr. Mohanty would argue that the first phase
select list dtd.6.9.2012 was made subject to the final
outcome of the original applications filed before the
Tribunal. The second list was published after disposal
of the said original applications and vacation of the
interim order. Therefore, the second list cannot be
treated as a separate list but a continuation of the first
list. In fact, the second list itself mentioned so. Under
such circumstances, the Petitioner being a direct
recruit was placed above Opp. Party No.7 in the
composite merit list (revised list) and therefore, he
could not have been placed below Opp. Party No.7 in
the subsequent gradation list. Mr. Mohanty, further
argues that 2012 Order, which came into force on
18.10.2012, governs the field as no other statutory
order governing the inter se seniority for the post of
Deputy Subedar was invoked prior to that date. The
2000 Rules does not apply to Deputy Subedar as is
evident from Rule-3 thereof. The Opp. Party-authorities
cannot therefore claim to have applied the provisions of
the 2000 Rules to fix the inter-se seniority. The date of
joining and date of promotion have nowhere been
prescribed as the basis of fixation of inter se seniority,
which is to be fixed purely as per the composite select
list (revised list). The State cannot apply two
Rules/Orders simultaneously while preparing one
gradation list. Even if 2000 Rules are applied, then as
per Rule 17(i), it is the select list which shall form the
basis for preparation of gradation list. If the 2012
Order is applied then Order 23(5) also speaks about
fixation of seniority as per the select list prepared by
OSSC. Mr. Mohanty also argues that since the first
phase selection was made subject to the final outcome
of the O.A., the appointees as per the said list do not
acquire any preferential right nor any equitable right
was created in their favour. The candidates belonging
to UR and SEBC category who were selected and
appointed in the first phase in the select list
dtd.6.9.2012 prior to the Petitioner will not be affected
as their merit position is higher than him. It is only
the SC and ST cases including Opp. Party No.7, who
may be affected.
14. Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate submits that the Writ Petition is not
maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. The
Petitioner has impleaded only one person from each
category i.e. direct recruits and promotees but as
seniority has accrued in favour of persons who are
above the petitioner, entertaining the Writ Petition and
granting the relief claimed by the petitioner would
unsettle the settled position of more than a decade
without giving a chance of personal hearing to the said
persons. On merits, Mr. Patnaik would argue that the
authorities have followed the general principle to
determine seniority on the basis of date of joining in
the absence of any rule. According to Mr. Patnaik, it is
trite law that when more than one method of induction
into service is available in a cadre then the promotees
are to be placed en-bloc senior to the direct recruits of
that year. The year of engagement of the petitioner is
2013. The promotees of the same year therefore have
to be placed above him. Further, the petitioner cannot
claim to supersede the direct recruits who entered the
cadre in the year 2012, he not having entered the
cadre at that time. The G.A. Department Notification
dtd.09.9.2021 clearly provides that where direct
recruitment, promotional recruitment and/or selection
recruitment are prescribed in a rank, the seniority of
the candidates appointed in a calendar year out of the
select list so prepared shall be arranged in the order in
which their names appear in the respective merit
lists/select list and shall be fixed and en-bloc in the
calendar year in which the appointment orders are
issued and in the sequence prescribed in the relevant
cadre rules governing the cadre. A conjoint reading of
Clauses 23 (5) and (6) would reveal that candidates
appointed by way of limited competitive examination
shall be en-bloc senior to the direct recruits, whereas
they will be placed below the promotees en-bloc in the
same year.
15. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submissions. Since the maintainability of the Writ
Petition has been raised by the State counsel, it is felt
proper to decide the said issue at the first instance
before delving into the merits of the case. According to
learned State counsel, the Petitioner challenges the
position of Opp. Party Nos.6 and 7 in the gradation list,
but in case his contention is accepted, other similarly
placed members of the service would be adversely
affected. The Petitioner not having impleaded them, the
Writ Petition is bad for non-joinder of parties. The
Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that as per the
settled position of law, he need not implead each and
every person likely to be affected as party and that it
would suffice if he selectively impleads only a few
employees. In the instant case, he has impleaded one
person from each category i.e. direct recruits (Opp.
Party No.7) and promotees (Opp. Party No.6). In
support of his contention as above, Mr. Mohanty,
learned counsel for the Petitioner has cited the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay
Kumar Shukla and others v. Arvind Rai and
others1.
16. As is evident, the Petitioner's grievance is two-
fold namely, (i) placement of Opp. Party No.7, a direct
(2022)12 SCC 579
recruit above him in the gradation list despite featuring
below him in the select list; and (ii) placement of Opp.
Party No.6, a promotee, above him in the gradation list
despite being promoted after the direct recruitment of
the Petitioner. Thus, two categories of employees are
involved in the challenge of the Petitioner. It is an
acceptable argument that in case the contentions of
the Petitioner are accepted, the inter-se seniority
position as a whole would be affected and thereby
employees similarly situated as Opp. Party Nos.6 and 7
would certainly be affected. But then, one employee
from each category having been impleaded, this Court
is of the view that the interests of the respective groups
stand adequately protected. This is being said for the
reason that the employees of each of the groups stand
on the same footing and therefore, the contentions that
may be raised by them cannot be different from each
other. Recognizing this principle, the Supreme Court
in the case of Ajay Kumar Shukla and others
(supra) held as follows:
"xx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
In matters relating to service
jurisprudence, time and again it has been
held that it is not essential to implead
each and every one who could be affected
but if a Section of such affected
employees is impleaded then the interest
of all is represented and protected. In
view of the above, it is well settled that
impleadment of a few of the affected
employees would be sufficient compliance
of the principle of joinder of parties and
they could defend the interest of all
affected persons in their representative
capacity. Non-joining of all the parties
cannot be held to be fatal."
This Court is therefore unable to accept the
contentions advanced by the learned State counsel
with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition and
holds that the Writ Petition is not bad for non-joinder
of the necessary parties.
17. As already stated, the grievance of the Petitioner
is two-fold: -
Despite being placed at higher position in the
composite (revised) select list drawn on merit, he has
been placed below Opposite Party No.7, who is also a
direct recruit like him in the gradation list. Secondly,
Opposite Party No.6 was promoted after the direct
recruitment of the Petitioner and therefore, placing him
higher than him in the gradation list is unjustified and
arbitrary.
18. Coming to the first question raised by the
Petitioner, it is seen that in the composite revised list
published by the OSSC on 02.4.2013, the Petitioner
was in fact placed at Sl. No.263 whereas Opp. Party
No.7 was placed at 283. However, while preparing the
gradation list on 27.9.2016, the Opp. Party No.7 was
placed at Sl.No.194, whereas the Petitioner was placed
at Sl. No.306. It is to be noted that the Petitioner was a
S.E.B.C. candidate while Opp. Party No.7 was a S.C.
candidate. It is not the Petitioner's case that any
person belonging to the SEBC category and placed
below him in the merit list (revised select list) was
placed above him in the gradation list. In fact, in the
counter affidavit filed by the State, it is emphatically
averred that in the first select list published on
06.9.2012, 16 SEBC candidates found place, all of
whom had occupied higher position on merit. The
Petitioner can therefore, have no grievance in such
respect.
19. As regards the placement of Opp. Party No.7,
two things are relevant. Firstly, he was appointed in
the first select list i.e. w.e.f. 21.9.2012 whereas the
Petitioner was appointed on 01.5.2013. Secondly, Opp.
Party No.7 belonged to the S.C. category and was
appointed in the first phase against the 24 Schedule
Caste vacancies available. It is forcefully argued on
behalf of the Petitioner that both the Petitioner and
Opp. Party No.7 having appeared in the same selection
test pursuant to the same advertisement but appointed
on different dates cannot be treated separately but
have to be treated as recruitees of the same selection.
This Court is not inclined to accept such an argument
for the reason that even though Opp. Party No.7 had
secured a lesser position than the Petitioner in the
merit list, yet he, having been selected and appointed
against the vacancies earmarked for the S.C.
candidates in the first phase select list, the Petitioner
cannot have any grievance on such score.
20. Coming to the second question urged by the
Petitioner, it is seen that Opp. Party No.6 being a
general candidate was promoted to the post of Deputy
Subedar from the post of Havildar Major. Such
promotion was effected on 24.6.2013. According to the
stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the State,
the inter-se seniority was fixed as per the 2000 Rules,
particularly, Rule 16 thereof. Perusal of the Rules
leaves the Court wondering as to how the same could
be applied to Deputy Subedars when Rule 3 thereof
mentions Odisha Special Armed Police Service as being
comprised of the following;
"(a)Group 'A'
(i) Commandant
(ii) Deputy Commandant, and
(iii) Assistant Commandant
(b)Group-'B'
(i) Subedar Major
(ii) Subedar, and
(iii) Reserve Inspector"
21. The post of Deputy Subedar does not find place
at all in the said Rules. It has also been mentioned
elsewhere that the fixation of inter-se seniority was
based on the principle laid down in the 2012 Orders.
As per Clause-6 of Order 23, all promotees appointed
in the calendar year shall be en-bloc senior to the
directly recruited S.I. of Police (Armed). There is no
dispute at the bar that these Rules underwent an
amendment w.e.f. 16.9.2016, whereby Clause-6 was
substituted as follows:
"The inter se seniority in the rank of
Inspector of Police (Armed) shall be
determined as per the position assigned
to them in the select list approved by the
Government."
22. The 2012 Order was superseded by OPS (MR
and CS) (Armed), Order 2021 w.e.f. 04.2.2021. Though
Order 25 deals with inter-se seniority among
appointees yet it does not say anything as to the inter
group seniority among direct recruits, promotees and
limited competition (selection appointees). The
impugned gradation list was published on 27.9.2016
i.e. after coming into force of the 2016 amendment to
the 2012 Orders. In other words, the gradation list
was prepared when the amended order was in force. As
already stated, the amended order substituted the
existing Clause-6 of Order 25 which provided that
promotees of a calendar year shall be en-bloc senior to
the direct recruits of that calendar year. No other Rule
or executive instruction was placed before this Court
governing this aspect.
23. On the above basis, it is forcibly contended by
Mr. Mohanty that since the OACP Amendment order,
2016 had already come into force as on the date of
coming into force of the final gradation list of Deputy
Subedars prepared on 14.8.2019, the amended orders
23(5) and 23(6) are to be applied which prescribe
fixation of inter se seniority by substituting the earlier
Order 23(6) on the basis of select list. Learned State
counsel, in reply, argues that the fixation of inter se
seniority has to relate back to the time when the
concerned employee(s) were borne in the cadre. In
other words, the prevailing rules governing the inter-se
seniority has to be applied and not the Rules in vogue
during preparation of the gradation list.
24. This Court has given its anxious consideration
to the rival contentions. It is stated at the cost of
repetition that in so far as the Petitioner and Opp.Party
No.6 are concerned, both of them were appointed as
Deputy Subedar of Police in the calendar year, 2013
with the Petitioner being a direct recruit, and the
Opp.Party No.6, a promotee. At that time, the 2012
order was in force. Mr. Mohanty has heavily relied
upon Order 23(5), which reads as follows;
"23(5) Inter se seniority of direct
recruit Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed)
shall be in the order in which their
names are arranged in the select list
prepared by the Commission"
25. This, according to Mr. Mohanty makes the
Petitioner senior to the Opp.Party No.6. This Court is
unable to accept such contention for the reason that
bare reading of Sub-order (5) would reveal that the
same relates specifically to the inter-se seniority of
direct recruits of S.I. of Police (Armed) and does not say
anything as regards the inter-group seniority. As
already stated, appointment to the post of S.I. of Police
(Armed) can be by way of direct recruitment, limited
departmental competitive examination and promotion.
Sub-Order (5) does not say anything as regards the
fixation of seniority among these three sources of
appointment. However, Sub-Order (6) does so in the
following words;
"All candidates appointed to the
posts by promotion shall en-bloc be
senior to candidates appointed by
way of Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination in the
same year."
26. Read plainly, it means the promotees shall be
en-bloc senior to the other two groups and those
appointed by way of limited departmental competitive
examination shall be en-bloc senior to the direct
recruits. This, in short, was the rule governing the
inter se as well inter-group seniority of S.I. of Police
(Armed) in the calendar year 2013 when both
Petitioner as well as Opp.Party No.6 were appointed as
such. According to the Petitioner, the relevant date
would be the date on which the gradation list was
prepared. This Court is not persuaded to accept the
argument as it would lead to a fallacious position in
that the seniority as already fixed by virtue of the
existing rules would perforce be altered. In any event,
the amendment rules which came w.e.f. 16.9.2016
would always be prospective in their operation. So,
only because the gradation list was prepared long after
the appointment of the concerned candidates cannot
mean that the rule governing their inter-se seniority at
the time of their appointment would have no
application. It is trite law that inter se seniority is to be
governed by the existing rules. Therefore, the date of
preparation and finalization of the gradation list,
supposed to reflect the seniority of the incumbents,
would be inconsequential. Otherwise, it would result in
nullifying the effect of a particular rule that was
already in force at the relevant time. The argument
advanced to the contrary is therefore, not acceptable.
27. From a conspectus of the analysis and
discussion made, it is evident that both the Petitioner
and Opp.Party No.6 having been appointed during the
calendar year 2013 would be subject to the 2012
order. The subsequent amendments to the rule would
have no relevance. Viewed thus, the Opp.Party No.6
being a promotee was rightly placed above the
Petitioner, who is a direct recruit irrespective of their
dates of appointment/joining. This Court is therefore,
not persuaded to interfere with the impugned
gradation list.
28. In the result, this Court finds no merit in the
Writ Petition, which is therefore, dismissed.
29. This judgment shall govern the connected writ
applications, which are also dismissed.
..................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Reason: AuthenticationAshok Kumar Behera
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 19-Nov-2025 10:57:39
