Niranjan Panda vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 10 March, 2026

Author: Chittaranjan Dash

Bench: Chittaranjan Dash

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                         W.P(C). No.38020 of 2020
               In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
               Constitution of India.
                                               ....
               Niranjan Panda                        ....             Petitioner
                                                        -versus-

               State of Odisha & Others                            ....             Opp. Parties

                                    Advocates Appeared in this case
                          For Petitioner            -       Mr. B. Mishra, Advocate

                          For Opp. Parties -                Mr. S.K. Jee,
                                                            Addl. Govt. Advocate for O.Ps.1 to 3

                                                          ....
   CORAM :
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Date of Hearing & Judgment : 10.03.2026
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT,J.

We prelude this judgment with what William Shakespeare writes in his play 'King Henry VI':

"...Ignorance is the curse of God, knowledge the wing wherewith we fly to heaven...."1

Petitioner is a Group-D employee (Peon), who is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Orissa Administrative Tribunal's order dated 24.01.2019, whereby the claim for full relief

. King Henry VI, Part 2 Act IV, Scene 7.

having been rejected, a partial relief has been accorded to him as under:

"7. Hence, the O.A. is allowed in part. The prayer to promote the applicant to Group-C post on the basis of DPC dt.l0.1.2014, stands rejected but it will not be an impediment to consider his promotion to Group-C in subsequent D.PC. The prayer to mention his present qualification in gradation list at Annx.l2 is allowed and the same be carried out forthwith."

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is absent. However, that would not deter the Court from treating the matter brought before it in a normative way.

3. Petitioner was denied promotion to the Group-C cadre, i.e., Junior Assistant in the DPC dated 10.01.2014, mainly on the ground that he had acquired higher educational qualification sans permission of the appointing authority. We hasten to add that the denial of promotion was DPC specific, although an observation is made by the Tribunal for him to stake his claim for promotion in the succeeding DPC. Be it said at this stage that the matter was carried to the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.404 of 2025 and the same came to be allowed vide order dated 07.01.2025 remanding the matter for consideration afresh at our hand.

4. Having perused the petition papers and having heard learned AGA-Mr. Jee appearing for the OPs, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

4.1. Petitioner has put in a long & spotless service in the cadre of Group-D, is not in dispute with the credentials which he has; he had staked his claim for promotion to Group-C and that came to be negatived by the DPC that met on 10.01.2014, solely on the ground that he had acquired educational qualification required for the higher

position, without permission secured at the hands of the employer. The vehement submission of learned AGA-Mr. Jee that under Rule- 13 of Odisha Leave Rules, permission is required for making value addition, is bit difficult to countenance. The relevant part of said Rule-13 reads as under:

"13. Study Leave- Generally study leave is not granted to subordinate staff. It is only granted to them in very exceptional cases. It is not ordinarily to be granted to Government servants of less than five years of service or Government servants within three years of service."

Availment of study leave is one thing and studying without availing the leave, is another. The subject matter of Rule-13 relates to the first part. If a person makes value addition without availing the leave, the Rules do not say that such value addition is liable to be ignored. Rabindranath Tagore in 'Gitanjali (Song Offerings)', 1912 at Pg.35 rhapsodically said:

"Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high; Where knowledge is free...;

Xx xx xx Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake."

4.2. Our Constitution inarticulately recognizes pursuit of happiness and that pursuit fructifies when one makes value addition, be it education, skill development or the like. No person can be deprived of benefit of value addition unless the law provides for the contrary. Evolutionary history of organisms highlights their adaptability to the requirement of changing conditions, in a sense value addition gives the individual adaptability & flexibility. Rule 13 of the extant Rules

does not indicate any such contra intent. Charles Darwin (1809- 1882) in his "The Descent of Man" writes:

"...To believe that man was aboriginally civilised and then suffered utter degradation in so many regions, is to take a pitiably low view of human nature. It is apparently a truer and more cheerful view that progress has been much more general than retrogression; that man has risen, though by slow and interrupted steps, from a lowly condition to the highest standard as yet attained by him in knowledge, morals, and religion."2

4.3. The Apex Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India3, has observed as under:

"...'Right to life' is the compendious expression for all those rights which the Courts must enforce because they are basic to the dignified enjoyment of life. It extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue. The right to education flows directly from right to life. The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The State Government is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens... The "right to education", therefore, is concomitant to the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. The State is under a constitutional-mandate to provide educational institutions at all levels for the benefit of the citizens. The educational institutions must function to the best advantage of the citizens. Opportunity to acquire education cannot be confined to the richer section of the society..."

Acquiring knowledge is part of the many ethos of this Country. Unless the law prohibits or regulates, the acquisition of educational qualification cannot be found fault with. We have not been notified any Rule, which says that no employee shall make value addition without the leave of employer. If somebody has made value addition, he should be favoured, inasmuch that addition escalates the standard of living and the quality of performance in the job, subject to all just exceptions. Knowledge has always been encouraged, surfing through

. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (1871), Vol. I, Chapter V, Pg. 185.

. (1948) 2 SCR 67.

scriptures. 'The Bhagavad Gita' in Chapter 4, verse 33 reads; Shreyan Dravya Mayad Yajnaj Jnana Yajnah Parantapa, Sarvam Karmakhilam Partha Jnane Parisamapyate meaning, O subduer of enemies, sacrifice performed in knowledge is superior to any mechanical material sacrifice. After all, O Parth, all sacrifices of work culminate in knowledge."

4.4. The above reasoning does not animate impugned order of the Tribunal. Added, the Tribunal specifically directs recording of the acquisition of higher education in the Service Register for being considered for promotion to the next level in the succeeding DPC. If something is valid for the next DPC, why it is not valid for the first DPC, is a question that stares at rules of reason & justice. Thus, the Tribunal has grossly erred in denying full relief to the Petitioner.

In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing that part of the impugned order of the Tribunal, which denies relief of promotion to the Petitioner on the basis of 10.01.2014 DPC. A Writ of Mandamus issues to the OPs to accord promotion to the Petitioner with retrospective effect on the basis of DPC of 10.01.2014 within a period of eight weeks. He shall be paid 50% of the back wages and for rest it shall be a case of notional promotion. He shall be given seniority on the basis of merit list in DPC. A compliance report be filed with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of nine weeks without giving scope for contempt proceedings.

The OPs shall collectively pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only to the Petitioner, since he was made to fight this avoidable legal battle up to the level of

Apex Court. Delay in remittance shall carry additional levy of Rs.250/- per day for the first month, and Rs.500/- for the days next following. The additional levy may be recovered from the erring officials of the department personally.

Registry to send a copy of this Judgment to Petitioner.

Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.

(Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 10th day of March 2026 /Madhusmita

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK