Prasanna Kumar Behera vs State of Odisha and others

B.P. Routray, J.

The Petitioner presently working as Level-IV Graduate Teacher in Elementary Cadre at Adivasi Government U.P. School, S.Balang in the district of Sundargarh. He has prayed for antedating his promotion with effect from 1^st August 2022 pursuant to the promotion order dated 15^th July 2022.

Heard Mr.Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.Jee, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties.

In course of hearing, it is submitted by Mr.Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioner that, the date of promotion may be effected from 16^th July 2022, as his juniors have been promoted with effect from the said date in the post of Level-IV Graduate Teacher. But, the date, i.e. 1^st August 2022 has inadvertently been typed in the prayer portion.

The admitted fact remains that the Petitioner, while working as Level-V(B) Senior Teacher having Graduate (Arts) with training qualification and OTET, has been selected for promotion as per the order dated 8^th July 2022 under Annexure-5 series of the District Education Officer, Sundergarh. In the promotional order dated 8^th July 2022, the Petitioner was placed at Sl. No.61 and he along with others were directed to attend the counseling for giving their choice of posting in the promotional post. In said promotional order, it was stated that the candidates were directed to attend the counseling on 15^th July 2022 and to join in the promotional post on 16^th July 2022.

The Petitioner due to his physical illness was on leave from 21^st June 2022 to 31^st July 2022 and as such, could not attend the counseling on 15^th July 2022 to exercise his option for choice of posting in the need based school. Since the Petitioner did not join the counseling on 15^th July 2022, he was not issued with promotional order by the Block Education Officer, whereas others including the juniors to the Petitioner have been issued with promotional order along with posting to different schools on 15^th July 2022 under Annexure-6. The Petitioner after recovery from his illness joined in duty on 1^st August 2022 and then approached the authority for issuance of promotional order. But the authority did not attend to the grievance of the Petitioner and therefore, he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.355 of 2025. This Court, vide order dated 10^th January 2025, directed for consideration of the grievance of the Petitioner as per his representation. Pursuant to the said direction of this Court dated 10^th January 2025, the Block Education Officer gave promotion to the Petitioner prospectively with effect from 11^th June 2025 giving him posting at Government U.G. High School, Pithachora.

Being aggrieved by said order giving him prospective promotion instead of giving him promotion with effect from 16^th July 2022, the Petitioner again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.3231 of 2026. This Court, vide order dated 2^nd February 2026, directed the District Education Officer for fresh consideration of the grievance of the Petitioner regarding his promotion with effect from 16^th June 2022. The relevant direction of this Court as per order dated 2^nd February 2026 is as follows:-

Thereafter, the District Education Officer vide impugned order dated 10^th June 2026 reiterated the decision of the Block Education Officer by holding that the Petitioner did not attend the counseling on 15^th July 2022 for choice of school for posting on promotion and therefore his promotion with retrospective effect from 16^th July 2022 is rejected being devoid of merit.

It is submitted by Mr.Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioner that non-attendance of the Petitioner to the counseling held on 15^th July 2022 was unintentional due to his illness as he remained on leave from 21^st June 2022 to 31^st July 2022. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that since leave was due on the part of the Petitioner with permission of the authority, the non-attendance on the part of the Petitioner cannot be treated adversely against him to debar him from the benefit of promotion.

Mr.Jee, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that since the Petitioner did not attend the counseling process as per the direction contained in the promotional order dated 8^th July 2022, he was rightly denied the effect of promotion, which was given in favour of those persons, even junior to the Petitioner, who attended the counseling. It is submitted by Mr.Jee that the counseling for choice of posting is a process mandatory by the policy decision of the Government and therefore, the Petitioner when not given any posting in the promotional post due to his fault for not attending the counseling, he cannot claim any equity in respect of other teachers, who attended the counseling.

Admittedly, the Petitioner was given promotion by the District Educational Officer as per his order dated 8^th July 2022 under Annexure-5 series as per the recommendation of the District Level Promotion Committee. The Petitioner’s name finds place at Sl. No.61 in the said order and he was eligible for promotion to Level-IV Graduate Teacher. This fact being remained undisputed to grant promotion in favour of the Petitioner, the subsequent order of posting of the Petitioner in his choice school remains as a formality. It is true that, in the order of the promotion of the District Education Officer, the selected candidates were directed to attend the counseling to give choice of their posting to such school, but that never mean that non-attendance of the counseling would debar the candidate from getting the promotion. The date of counseling was fixed to 15^th July 2022 when the Petitioner was suffering from illness and was absent from duty. He was on leave for the period from 21^st June 2022 to 31^st July 2022 and therefore, at any circumstances, it could be said that the absence of the petitioner from the counseling was not deliberate or intentional. The counseling, as understood, is for giving choice posting to the candidates in a need based school. The eligibility of the Petitioner for promotion to Level-IV Graduate Teacher is never questioned by the authority and therefore, if he did not attend the counseling, his right of choice may be withdrawn or forfeited. But, in the circumstances of the present case, the right of promotion of the Petitioner to next higher post has been withheld for absence of his participation in the counseling process for giving a choice posting. This appears to be grossly illegal.

When the eligibility of the Petitioner for promotion remains unquestioned and the non-attendance of the Petitioner for the counseling was unintentional, debarring him from getting the promotional benefits for not attending the counseling is unsustainable in the eye of law. At best the Petitioner can be debarred from getting a choice posting for not attending the counseling. It needs to be stated here that the counseling is meant for giving choice of posting to the school along with other selected candidates. Therefore, in such circumstances, when the Petitioner was unable to attend or did not attend the counseling, his right of exercising choice may be withdrawn, but not his right for promotion. Petitioner’s right of promotion has already been decided in order dated 8^th July 2022. The Petitioner could have been given such posting as per the choice of the authority for not attending the counseling process. Thus withdrawal of entire promotional benefit on the part of the Petitioner for not attending the counseling being erroneous, the impugned order of the District Education Officer dated 10^th June 2026 under Annexure-9 is liable to be quashed.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order under Annexure-9 is quashed and the Authorities, i.e., the District Education Officer, Mayurbhanj (Opposite Party No.3) is directed to grant promotional benefits to the Petitioner with effect from the date from which his juniors have been promoted, i.e. with effect from 16^th July 2022, along with all consequential service and financial benefits.