GAYADHAR PANDA Vs. REGISTRAR ADMN HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners in both the writ applications are Judicial Officers, who call in question the promotion of opp. Party No. 2 to the cadre of Orissa Judicial Service, Class 1 (Junior) (S.D.J.M.) by superseding them and six other senior officers in the cadre of Orissa Judicial Service, Class 11.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1542 of 1995 is that, he was appointed as a Probationary Munsif in the year 1985 and he has an excellent service record without any adverse remark in the C.C.R. The petitioner's position in the seniority list of the year 1992 was at serial No. 19, whereas the opp. Party No. 2 was at serial No. 20. Subsequently, by Gazette notification dated 1 st January, 1994 under Rule 27 of the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called as 'O.J.S. Rules, 1964') and pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner's seniority was refixed and he was placed at serial No. 8, whereas the seniority position of opp. Party No. 2 was fixed at 9 of 1985 batch. A copy of the said Gazette Notification has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner alleges that the High Court, while promoting the officers from Orissa Judicial Service Class 11 cadre of 1985 batch to the cadre of Orissa Judicial Service, Class l (Junior) (S.D.J.M.), the petitioner's case has been ignored and opp. party No. 2 has been promoted and placed at serial No. 1 of the 1985 batch in superseding 7 other such promoted officers by notification dated 28.6.1994, a copy of which is Annexure 3. The petitioner made a representation, copy of which is Annexure 4, pursuant to which, the Special Officer (Administration), of the High Court in his confidential letter dated 28.11.1994 communicated the extract of the minutes of the Standing Committee dated 11.9.1993 and 10.4.1994 and the note of the then Hon'ble Chief Justice without disclosing any reason for supersession. A copy of the letter of the Special Officer (Administration) along with extract of the minutes of the Standing Committee and the note of the Chief Justice have been annexed as Annexure 5 series. The petitioner alleges that not only the opp. Party No. 2 has got the promotion superseding him who is admittedly senior to him, but he is even placed at sl. No. 1 of the officers promoted from 1985 batch superseding 7 other senior officers promoted along with him without any reason or rhyme even though they all have good C.C.R. Petitioner alleged that presumably the C.C.R. and other records were not properly placed before the Standing Committee, at the time it considered the cases for promotions and, therefore, he claims promotion from 26.5.1994, the date, opp. Party No. 2, who is admittedly junior in Class ll cadre was given promotion with all consequential benefits.

(3.) THE opposite party No. 1, Registrar (Administration) has filed a return denying the claim and refuting the allegations made by the petitioners. However, it is admitted that the opposite party No. 2, Sri R. K. Mohanty was junior to the petitioners and placed just below the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1542 of 1995 in the Civil List of 1985 batch of O.J.S. Ctass ll Officers. It is specifically asserted that at the time the cases for promotion was taken up, the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1542 of 1995 was placed at serial No. 8 and petitioner in O.J.C. No. 2966 of 1995 at serial No. 1 of the Civil List whereas opposite party No, 2 was at serial No. 9 of the seniority list. According to the stand taken in the counter affidavit, the then Hon'ble Chief Justice came across a judgment dated 12.2.1992 delivered by Shri R. C. Mohanty, opposite party No. 2, in G. R. Case No. 187 of 1988, which having impressed him some other judgments delivered by Shri Mohanty was called for and the Hon'ble Chief Justice in a note, observed that since opposite party No. 2 is consistently writing good judgments, he needs to be encouraged and groomed up and for this purpose, may even he promoted out of turn. The Registry was directed to put up this note as and when promotion of officers in the cadre of Sri Mohanty is taken up for promotion by the Standing Committee. Accordingly, the case of opposite party No. 2 along with the other officers was put up before the Standing Committee in its meeting held on 11.9.1993, wherein it was resolved that opposite party No. 2 would be the first person to be promoted when question of promotion of officers of 1985 batch would be taken up. The extract of the minutes of the Standing Committee has been annexed as Annexure B. On the basis of such decision, the Standing Committee in their meeting held on 10.4.1994 promoted opposite party No. 2 as the 1st person of his batch, superseding all the 8 officers of his batch who were senior to him. A copy of the minutes of the Standing Committee dated 10.4.1994 has also been annexed as Annexure C.