SIDHINATH PADHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a Revenue Inspector in 1963 when a disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against him. During the pendency of that proceeding, one Bijiram Patel (Opposite Party No. 7) who was admittedly junior to the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Revenue Supervisor, Grade II, without the petitioner's case being considered. The petitioner made a representation to the S. D. O., Panposh, who intimated him by a letter dated 9-9-65 (Annexure-2) that his case for promotion would be considered after finalisation of the departmental proceeding. During the pendency of the proceeding, Opposite Parties 8 to 10, who were junior to the petitioner, were also promoted to the rank of Revenue Supervisor, Grade II, without the case of the petitioner being considered. On 22nd of February, 1966, the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges. He was promoted as Revenue Supervisor, Grade II, on 31-3-66. He, however, was denied earlier promotion with effect from the dates his juniors got promotion en the ground that a circular, Annexure-5, dated 2nd March, 1966, prohibited past cases being reopened. An order (Annexure-6) to that effect was passed on 22nd of June, 1966. On 6-1-67 as there was no vacancy, the petitioner was reverted from the rank of Revenue Supervisor, Grade II, to the post of Revenue Inspector though his juniors were allowed ot conitnue in the higher posts. On 21-3-72, the petitioner was again promoted as Revenue Supervisor, Grade II This writ application has been filed with the prayer that the petitioner's case for promotion as Revenue Supervisor, Grade II, with effect from 12-9-63, and as Revenue Supervisor, Grade I, with effect from 21-3-72 should be considered retrospectively vis-a-vis his juniors, Opposite Parties 7 to 10.

(2.) The sole question for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion as prayed for by him on his being exonerated in the departmental proceeding.

(3.) Law is well-settled that a Government servant has no right to promotion. He has, however, a right to be considered for promotion. This principle is based on Article 16 (1) of the Constitution which lays down that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. It is also now well settled that the expression "employment or appointment" would not be construed in a narrow sense, but liberally. That means, it would not only take within its sweep initial appointments, but promotions which essentially mean appointments to higher posts.