[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Smaranika Rout vs Tata Powers Central Òdisha .... ... on 20 February, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.29237 of 2020
Smaranika Rout .... Petitioner
Mr. S. K. Das, Advocate
-Versus-
TATA Powers Central Òdisha .... Opposite Parties
Distribution Ltd, Bhubaneswar &
others
Mr. B. Dash, Advocate
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Order ORDER
No. 20.02.2026
06. 1. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Dash, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 to 3.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner
challenging the impugned orders dated 14th January, 2020 and
25th September, 2020 as at Annexures-8 and 10 respectively
and to direct the opposite parties to grant her the benefit of
promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Electrical) against
5% quota meant for the Junior Manager (Electrical) from the
date her Junior Sri A.K. Mohanty received such promotion i.e.
on 20th March, 2020 and also to grant all consequential service
and financial benefits within a stipulated period.
3. Perused the impugned order as at Annexure-10.
4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has been denied promotion as against the quota
vide Annexure-10 on the premise that she does not fulfill the
stipulations contained in the internal circular dated 14th
January, 2020 having not applied or taken prior permission
from CESU and completed the decree course in Electrical
Engineering in terms thereof. The further submission is that the
petitioner passed the Be-Tech degree in Electrical Engineering
from Instituted of Technical Education Research, Bhubaneswar
under Biju Patnaik University of Technology, Odisha in the
year 2007-08 which is much prior to her joining in service. The
contention is that the petitioner is entitled to such promotion
against 5% quota meant for the Junior Manager (Electrical) but
received promotion in the year 2021. The contention is that the
petitioner is entitled to promotion with effect from 20 th March,
2020 when her junior, namely, Ayaskanta Mohanty received
such promotion. By referring to the Gradation List as at
Annexure-11, it is also contended that the petitioner is placed
above said Sri Ayaskanta Mohanty, who is at serial No.170 and
received the promotion with effect from 20th March, 2020 as
per Annexure-12. It is finally contended that the decision as per
Annexure-10 of the Authority concerned cannot be sustained in
law in view of the judgment of this Court in Debendra Sahoo
Vrs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.18711 of 2019
and two other cases as at Annexure-13 and upheld by judgment
on 16th November, 2023 in W.A. No.1611 of 2023.
5. Mr. Dash, learned counsel referring to the counter
affidavit filed through opposite party No.1 submits that the
criteria fixed for such promotion as against 5% quota meant for
a Junior Manager (Electrical)`etc. have not been fulfilled and
therefore, the petitioner has not been considered for such
promotion but was later promoted in 2021 vide Annexure-K/1.
The contention is that unless and until the stipulations in the
internal circular dated 14th January, 2020 are satisfied,
promotion against the quota cannot be considered and rightly
so, the Authority concerned declined such promotion in favour
of the petitioner, as she did not fulfill the same and therefore,
the impugned order vide Annexure-10 is perfectly justified.
6. The petitioner joined in CESU as Management Trainee
on 18th November, 2010 and successfully completed the
probation and received regular appointment on 18th November,
2011 exactly after a year and in the meantime, though, claimed
to be eligible for promotion against the quota but it has been
allegedly denied on the ground that she has the degree
qualification prior to her joining in service and not in
consonance with the internal circular dated 14th January, 2020.
The reason behind such non-consideration vis-a-vis promotion
is to the effect that the petitioner has no prior permission from
the office fulfilling other conditions of the circular. But, the fact
remains, the petitioner had already acquired such qualification
in the year 2007-08 and in that view of the matter, no scope
was left for her to obtain any such prior promotion to pursue
the Degree Engineering. The said aspect has not been
considered by the Authority concerned. Rather, the conclusion
as per Annexure-10 is that the stipulations of the internal
circular dated 14th January, 2020 have not been fulfilled. The
Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner could not
have been denied any such promotion as against the quota on
the basis of any such circular since she was already a degree
holder much prior to joining in service and therefore, the
impugned order as at Annexure-10 cannot be sustained in law
specially when in similarly situated cases, this Court vide
Annexures-13 and 14 directed promotion against 5% quota.
The Court finds that the petitioner is on a better footing as the
other candidates, who had approached this Court in W.P.(C)
No.18711 of 2019 and to other cases vide Annexure-13 and
have been granted the relief ultimately upheld with the
dismissal appeal filed and were also Degree Engineers. So, in
the ultimate view the Court the impugned order at Annexure-10
suffers from infirmity and hence, the same liable to be
interfered with and set at naught.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered.
8. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of. As a
necessary corollary, the impugned orders dated 14 th January,
2020 and 25th September, 2020 of opposite party Nos.1 and 2
as at Annexures-8 and 10 respectively are hereby set aside with
a direction to promote the petitioner as against 5% quota meant
for the Junior Manager (Electrical) with effect from 20th March,
2026 and to grant her all consequential service and financial
benefits and also to consider her seniority by a decision at the
earliest preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
10. A copy of the order be handed over to Mr. Dash,
learned counsel for the opposite parties for its onward
intimation and early compliance.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
