Jagannath Aich vs State Of Odisha And Others

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J

The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to issue direction to opposite parties no.1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner, upon

recommendation made by opposite party no.4, for appointment in the post of Odisha Revenue Service (Group-B) cadre as per the Odisha Revenue

Service Group-B (Recruitment) Rules, 2011 for the Recruitment Year, 2011 with all consequential monetary and service benefits, within a stipulated

period.

The factual matrix of the case, in precise, is that while the petitioner was continuing as Head Clerk in Boden Tahasil under the administrative

control of Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Nuapada, the Government of Odisha formulated Odisha Revenue Service Group-B (Recruitment) Rules,

2011 (for short “Rules, 2011â€) for facilitating the eligible persons for appointment into different posts under the cadre of Odisha Revenue Service

(ORS). In the said Rules, 30% of the total anticipated vacancies of a financial year is marked for promotion of the in-service candidates from among

the Consolidator Grade-I, Kanungo, Revenue Inspector, Revenue Supervisor or Ministerial Officers under the Board of Revenue, Revenue Divisional

Commissioner (s), Collectorates and other Revenue Offices. The candidates, having the eligibility criteria of outstanding merit and ability are eligible

for consideration for the post of Asst. Collector, Assistant Settlement Officer, Asst. Consolidation Officer, Additional Tahasildar and Sub-Registrar

under the cadre of ORS (Group-B). In pursuance thereof, the Secretary, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack, vide its letter no.607 dated 23.08.2012,

directed all the Revenue Divisional Commissioners; Collectors; I.G.R.; Director, Land Records and Survey; and Director, Consolidation for

recommending the names of the eligible officers working under their administrative control for considering their case for appointment in different posts

under the ORS (Group-B) cadre for the recruitment year 2011, as per the eligibility criteria fixed in Rules, 2011.

2.1 In response thereto, names of eligible candidates, who were found suitable as per the criteria fixed under Rule-6 of the Rules, 2011, were

sponsored to opposite party no.2. The selection committee, on 20.04.2013, issued a notification selecting 87 officers for different posts under the ORS

(Group-B) cadre for the year 2011. Thereby, the candidates, who were similarly placed with the petitioner, were promoted against their respective

posts under the ORS (Group-B) cadre. But the petitioner was denied such benefit on the ground that as five years CCRs from the year 2006-2007 to

2010-2011 were not available, his case was not recommended for promotion. Hence, this writ petition.

Ms. Saswati Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that CCRs are maintained by the authority under whose administrative control

the petitioner works, therefore, the plea taken that due to non-availability of his CCRs for the year 2006-2007 to 2010-2011, the petitioner has been

deprived of promotion, cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is further contended that due to illegal and arbitrary action of the opposite parties, the

petitioner has been deprived of getting promotion to the ORS (Group-B) cadre as per Rules, 2011. Therefore, he has filed the present petition.

Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State contended that there is a procedure adopted for grant of promotion

under Rules, 2011. Unless the candidates fulfill the eligibility criteria, as mentioned in Rule-6 of the Rules, 2011, his case cannot be taken into

consideration for promotion. As the CCRs of the petitioner for the period 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 were not available, his case could not be

considered. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion in the

year 2011.

This Court heard Ms. Saswati Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for

the State opposite parties by hybrid mode and perused the record. Pleadings having been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the

learned counsels, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

On the basis of the undisputed facts and rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the only question that cropped up for

consideration by this Court is whether due to non-availability of CCRs for the year 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 the petitioner can be denied promotion to

ORS (Group-B) cadre for the year 2011, as per Rules, 2011.

For just and proper adjudication of the case, Rule-6 of Odisha Revenue Service Group-B (Recruitment) Rules, 2011, being relevant, is extracted

hereunder:-

“6. Eligibility Criteria for Promotion:-

(1) No person shall be considered for appointment by promotion under clause (b) of rule 4 to the service unless:

(a) He/She is a graduate; and has worked for at least ten years in any one or more than one post taken together as Consolidator Grade-I Kanungo, Revenue

Supervisor, Revenue Inspector or Ministerial Officer under Board of Revenue/RDCs/Collectors/and other Revenue Offices on the 1st day of January of the year in

which the Committee meets; and

(b) He/She has passed departmental examination, if any; and

(2) He/She is not more than 53 years of age as on 1st day of January in which the Committee meets.â€​

In view of the aforesaid criteria fixed for promotion to ORS (Group-B) cadre, as per Rules, 2011, once the essential qualification required that there

must be availability of good CCR of the candidates for last five years, as the CCRs of the petitioner for the year 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 were not

available, his case was not considered by the authority.

On being noticed, the opposite parties have filed their counter affidavit, in para-2 thereof at the end it is specifically mentioned as follows:-

“(2). ……Therefore, as the C.C.Rs for the period from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 were not availability during the time of recommendation and his service

record was not outstanding level, his name was not recommended to the concerned authority.â€​

In para-4 of the counter affidavit, the opposite parties have further stated as follows:

“(4) That, in reply to the Para 6.7, it is humbly submitted that, the Applicant’s name was not recommended for the following reasons:

(a) He had not five years’ C.C.Rs. i.e. from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 which is one of the criteria for recommendation for promotion of an Officer to the cadre of

O.R.S. (Group-B). It is pertinent to mention that, Outstanding merit and ability are the important factor which can be assessed basing on the remarks of the CCRs

of an Officer as stipulated in the L.No.709 dated 29.09.2012 of Board of Revenue Odisha, Cuttack as enclosed in (ANNEXURE-D).â€​

Â

In view of the pleadings available on record, it is made clear that the petitioner had not five years of CCR from the year 2006-2007 to 2010-2011,

which is one of the criteria for recommendation for promotion to an officer cadre of ORS (Group-B) and the CCR must contain outstanding merit and

ability. This is an important factor which can be assessed basing on the remarks in the CCR of an officer, as stipulated in letter dated 29.09.2012 of

the Board of Revenue Odisha, Cuttack. The crux of the matter has been indicated in the counter affidavit that since the CCRs of the petitioner for

year 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 were not available, the case of the petitioner has not been considered for promotion.

In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner it has been pointed out that under the Right to Information Act, 2005 the petitioner had asked for

CCRs for the year 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. For the said years, though he has got outstanding CCRs, but the same were not placed

before the authority. To obtain the aforesaid information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the matter had to travel from 1st appellate authority

to 2nd appellate authority and in Second Appeal No. 362 of 2014, vide order dated 12th January, 2015, direction was given to provide the information.

Accordingly, information was provided by the authority vide Annexure-9 dated 11.02.2015, as per which the petitioner has got outstanding CCRs for

the year 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. So far as CCRs for the year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 are concerned, he has got outstanding.

Therefore, if last five years CCRs of the petitioner are computed, it would be seen that he has got outstanding CCRs.

According to Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, ‘pleading’ means the plaint or written statement containing in a concise form, the

material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence. Similarly, taking into consideration Section 3(vi) of Debts Recovery Tribunal

Regulations of Practice, 1997, “pleading†shall include original applications, reply statements, rejoinders and additional statements supplementing

the original applications and reply statements as may be permitted by the tribunal.

In Vidyawati Gupta v. Bhakti Hari Nayak, (2006) 2 SCC 777, the apex Court held that the word ‘pleadings’ under Order VI Rule 1 and

Order VII of the Code means ‘plaint’ or written statement.

In K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini, (2009) 1 SCC 354, the apex Court held that pleadings consist only of a plaint and a written statement. A

replication if filed by plaintiff and allowed by the Court would be a part of ‘pleadings’.

Keeping in view the meaning of ‘pleadings’, as stated above, the contention raised in the writ application, counter filed by the opposite

parties and consequential rejoinder filed by the petitioner, if taken into consideration, so far as last five years CCRs of the petitioner for the period

2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 are concerned, he has got outstanding. When there was availability of outstanding CCRs

of the petitioner for the last five years, if the authority could not produce the same at the time of recommendation, the petitioner should not be

debarred from getting promotion due to laches on the party of the authority.

In the above premises, the opposite parties are directed to take into consideration the last five years CCRs of the petitioner, as referred to above,

which are outstanding, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law so as to enable the petitioner to get promotion to ORS (Group-B) cadre for

the year 2011 against the existing vacancy. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of communication of the

judgment.

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

…………….…………..