SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in all the matters.

(2.) These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.2.2008 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 426, 1233, 2878, 3424 and 5637 of 2006 by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack by which the High Court has partly allowed all the writ petitions quashing certain directions issued by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called the 'Tribunal'), however, directed to re-consider the case of promotion of Sub-Inspectors (General) (hereinafter called 'SIs (g)') to the post of Inspectors, in case it is found that the SIs (g) had been placed below the Sub-Inspectors (Steno) (hereinafter called SIs (St), they should be granted promotion from the date their counterparts in the other wing had been promoted, in case, they fulfilled minimum eligibility criteria for promotion at the time of consideration of their respective juniors. Such an exercise was directed to be completed within a period of six months. However, the writ petitions have been allowed to the extent that the direction issued by the Tribunal to prepare the gradation list of SIs (St) and SIs(g) in accordance with the dates of passing out of the Sub-Inspector training course, has been quashed.

(3.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that most of the officers appellants/respondents involved in all these five appeals, had been appointed in 1972-73 onwards as SIs (g) and SIs (St). The eligibility for appointment had been different for both the wings. An additional qualification of stenography was required for the post of SI (St). After selection, candidates who were appointed as SIs (St) were given direct appointment and after five years, thereof, they were sent for training and after successful completion of training, they could become SIs (g) and could be considered for further promotion as Inspectors. So far as the SIs (g) were concerned after their selection they were sent for training in Police Training College and after completion thereof, they were appointed on probation for 2 years. Most of the officers belonging to both groups had been promoted as Inspectors, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police and by now retired after attaining the age of superannuation. There are claims and counter-claims regarding issuance of their inter se seniority lists in 1979, and in the year 1992. However, it remains undisputed that after considering the objections received by the Department, a final inter se seniority list was issued in 1997 and again in 1999. One SI (g) Parsuram Sahu, appointed in 1968 filed representation before the State Govt. to fix his seniority over and above two officers belonging to the group of SIs (St) and as no order was passed he approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 316/2000 - Parsuram Sahu vs. Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Orissa and others with a prayer for direction to recast the gradation list published in June 1997 and to place him over and above the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 therein. The said application was allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 27.4.2005 (Annexure-P/4) with a direction to consider the representation of Shri Parsuram Sahu keeping in mind the letter issued by the Home Department dated 3.2.1987 according to which, the seniority of the SIs (St) would be determined after their entry into General wing after passing the Training Course. The other O.A. No. 23/2000 - Sudhir Chandra Ray vs. State of Orissa and others was decided vide judgment and order dated 8.12.2005 placing reliance upon the judgment in Parsuram Sahu's case and similar direction was issued. Same remained the fate of OA No. 203/2001 -Sushanta Kumar Biswal and others vs. State of Orissa and others filed by officers appointed in 1993 as SIs (g) as the said Application was also disposed of by the Tribunal relying upon its earlier judgments in Parsuram Sahu and Sudhir Chandra Ray's cases. Being aggrieved, Writ Petition No. 624 of 2006 was filed by SIs (St) in the High Court challenging the judgment and order in OA No. 203 of 2001, and four other writ petitions against the judgment and order in OA No. 23 of 2000. All the said petitions have been disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment and order impugned herein. Hence, these appeals.