[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Jajati Keshari Rout vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 10 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) Nos.3626, 3628, 3630 & 3631 of 2023
WP(C) No.3626 of 2023
Jajati Keshari Rout ... Petitioner
Mr. N. Rath, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
(Opp. Party Nos. 3 & 4)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
10.02.2026
Order No.05
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Since the issue involved in the present batch of writ petition is
identical, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by
the present common order.
3. Heard Mr. N. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner,
Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the
State-Opp. Parties and Mr. J.K. Khuntia, learned counsel appearing
for the Private Opp. Parties.
4. In all these writ petitions, Petitioners challenge the notification
dtd.30.01.2023 so issued by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under
Annexure-11. Vide the said notification, Private Opp. Party Nos. 3
& 4 were extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst.
Director of Sericulture, Group-B in Level-I of the Pay Matrix under
ORSP Rules on ad hoc basis.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that
Petitioners while continuing as against the post of Weaving
Supervisor, the DPC was conducted on 13.01.2023 under Annexure-
10, to consider the eligibility of the concerned employees to get the
benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Director, Sericulture by
way of promotion.
5.1. It is fairly contended that Petitioners' claim to get the benefit of
promotion is covered in terms of the provision contained under Rule
9 of the Odisha Textile & Sericulture (Method of Recruitment &
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1993 (in short OTS Rules, 1993).
Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule 9(2) of the
Rules and the schedule appended thereto vide Schedule D, learned
counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that as provided in
the Schedule, the minimum qualifying service to get the benefit of
promotion was fixed initially at 5 years.
5.2. However, vide notification dtd.18.12.2020 so issued under
Annexure-5, such qualifying service of 5 years was reduced to 2 ½
years, in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 25 of the
aforesaid Rules.
5.3. It is contended that by the time the DPC was held on
13.01.2023, all the Petitioners had the required qualifying service of
2 ½ years. However, the DPC in its proceeding under Annexure-10
did not consider the claim of the Petitioners, only on the ground that
no one has completed the qualifying service of 5 years in the feeder
cadre.
5.4. It is also contended that by the time the DPC was so held on
13.01.2023, vacancy in UR category was at 4 and all the Petitioners,
if would have been considered by the DPC, taking into account the
notification issued under Annexure-5, would have got the benefit of
promotion. But since claim of the Petitioners was not considered
taking into account the unamended provision contained in Schedule
D of Rule 9(2), Petitioners were deprived to get the benefit of
promotion.
5.5. A further contention was also raised that Private Opp. Parties
were given the benefit of promotion as against UR vacancies on
being recommended by the DPC in its proceeding dtd.13.01.2023. It
is also fairly contended that during pendency of the writ petition, all
the Petitioners have attained the age of superannuation in the
meantime.
5.6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners accordingly
contended that since the DPC in its proceeding dtd.13.01.2023,
committed a wrong by taking the qualifying service at 5 years and
Petitioners accordingly were deprived to get the benefit of
promotion on the face of their eligibility for consideration, not only
the proceeding of the DPC dtd.13.01.2023 is illegal but also the
promotion of the Private Opp. Parties as against UR vacancies vide
notification dtd.30.01.2023 under Annexure-11. It is accordingly
contended that Opp. Party No. 1 be directed to conduct a review
DPC of the DPC dtd.13.01.2023 and consider the eligibility of the
Petitioner to get the benefit of promotion from the date Private Opp.
Party Nos. 3 & 4 got the benefit with all service and financial
benefits.
6. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other
hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter
affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 1. It is contended that since the
DPC while conducting the proceeding on 13.01.2023, found that
Private Opp. Party Nos. 3 & 4 have got more than 12 years of
qualifying service in the Feeder Cadre and Petitioners have not
completed the required 5 years of qualifying service in terms of the
provisions contained in the Schedule appended to Rule 9(2) of the
Rules, Private Opp. Parties on being recommended by the DPC in
its proceeding dtd.13.01.2023 under Annexure-A/1 were extended
with the benefit of promotion vide notification dtd.30.01.2023 under
Annexure-11.
6.1. It is contended that since Private Opp. Parties were more
eligible than the Petitioners and Petitioners were not having the
required qualifying service by the time DPC was held on
13.01.2023, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the
impugned proceeding and the benefit extended in favour of Opp.
Party Nos. 3 & 4 vide Annexure-11.
7. Mr. J.K. Khuntia, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos.
3 & 4 contended that basing on the order of promotion so issued
vide Annexure-11, Opp. Party No. 4 after availing the same, has
retired in the meantime on attaining the age of superannuation and
Opp. Party No. 3 is continuing in his service in the promotional post
as on date.
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that for the
purpose of getting the benefit of promotion to the rank of Addl.
Director, Sericulture, Rule 9(2) of the Rules and the stipulation
contained in Schedule D is required to be followed.
8.1. As found in Schedule D appended to Rule 9(2) of the Rules, the
minimum qualifying service to get the benefit of promotion was 5
years. But as found, such qualifying service of 5 years was reduced
to 2 ½ years by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 vide notification
dt.18.12.2020 under Annexure-5.
8.2. It is not disputed that by the time the DPC was held on
13.01.2023, all the Petitioners were having the required 2 ½ years of
qualifying service in the Feeder Cadre. But as found the DPC by
taking the qualifying service at 5 years, which was originally there
in Schedule D and without taking into consideration the notification
issued on 18.12.2020 under Annexure-5, did not consider the claim
of the Petitioners to get the benefit of promotion. While not
considering the claim of the Petitioners in the DPC, the DPC
recommended the claim of Opp. Party No. 4. Basing on such
recommendation, Opp. Party Nos. 3 & 4 have got the benefit of
promotion to the rank of Addl. Director, Sericulture, but against UR
vacancies vide notification dtd.30.01.2023 under Annexure-11.
8.3. Since by the time the DPC was held on 13.01.2023, the
qualifying service had already been reduced to 2 ½ years vide
Annexure-5 notification dtd.18.12.2020, non-consideration of the
Petitioner's claim on the ground that they don't have the qualifying
service of 5 years, could not have been taken by the DPC. Not only
that on the date of holding the DPC on 13.01.2023, 4 UR vacancies
were there.
8.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while interfering
with the decision of the DPC dtd.13.01.2023 under Annexure-A/1
and the notification dt.30.01.2023 under Annexure-11, directs Opp.
Party No. 1 to conduct a review DPC of the DPC dtd.13.01.2023
and consider the eligibility of the Petitioners on the said date to get
the benefit of promotion.
8.5. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to conduct the review DPC
within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this
order. If on such conduct of the review DPC, it will be held that
Petitioners were eligible to get the benefit of promotion,
consequential benefit of promotion be extended in their favour from
the date Opp. Party Nos. 3 & 4 got the benefit vide notification
dtd.30.01.2023.
8.6. However, since the Petitioners have already retired in the
meantime, all such benefit be extended on notional basis. But
Petitioners will be held entitled for revisions of their pension and
other retiral benefits as due and admissible with release of the
differential entitlements. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to take
consequential action basing on the recommendation of the review
DPC within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of
the recommendation.
9. All the writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid
observation and direction.
Photo copy of the order be placed in the connected case records.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 17-Feb-2026 11:53:10
