STATE OF ODISHA Vs. SANJITA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge has been made to the order dtd. 15/5/2014 of the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called ,,the Tribunal) passed in O.A. No.2541 of 2013 whereunder the Tribunal has passed order to accord promotion to the opposite party no.1 from the date her juniors got promoted.

(2.) The shorn off unnecessary details of the case of the petitioner are that the opposite party no.1 is a member of Odisha Administrative Service of 1987 batch. It is stated that while the opposite party no.1 was working in the cadre of OAS, Senior Branch, on 5/11/2012, Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter called ,,the DPC) was convened and she was found suitable for promotion to the rank of OAS (super time scale) along with her juniors. Though the proceeding of DPC meeting held on 5/11/2012 was finalized and recommendation was issued, no notification effecting promotion on implementation of recommendation was issued till 28/5/2013, but by notification No.14382 dtd. 28/5/2013, others were promoted to the rank of OAS (super time scale) ignoring the recommendation of the DPC in respect of the opposite party no.1. In the meantime, there was a criminal case filed against the opposite party no.1 alleging involvement of the present opposite party no.1 as per the report of the Superintendent of Police, CID CB, Odisha, Cuttack. It was intimated by the Crime Branch that cognizance of the offence has been taken against the opposite party no.1 on 14/5/2012 by the concerned Court. It is the further case of the opposite party no.1 that while the proposal was submitted to Government to promote her along with other junior officers, her case was kept in sealed cover in view of the report of the Crime Branch. The opposite party no.1 challenged the sealed cover procedure and filed O.A. No.2541 of 2013 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, relying upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others V- K.V.Jankiraman and others; reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109, allowed her Original Application on the ground that charge sheet in the criminal case was not served on the opposite party no.1 by the date of meeting of the Selection Board on 5/11/2012 nor on 28/5/2013 when the recommendation of the Selection Board was implemented and others were given promotion. The Tribunal passed order to open the sealed cover and issue order of promotion in her favour from the date her juniors got promoted. Being aggrieved by such order passed by the Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed by the State-petitioners.

(3.) Mr.Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the order of the Tribunal is illegal, improper and against the instructions of the Government in General Administration Department. According to him, an officer whose name is recommended for promotion to the Screening Committee but in whose case any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph-3 of the Office Memorandum dtd. 18/2/1994 arise after the recommendations of the Screening Committee are received before he is actually promoted, will be considered as if his cases had been placed in a sealed cover by the Screening Committee. Paragraph-3 of such Office Memorandum dtd. 18/2/1994 is placed below: