SHIB SANKAR MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE similar question is involved in all the five writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Original Application No. 23 of 2000 was filed by one Sudhir Chandra Roy, one of the opposite parties in the instant writ petitions alleging that he was appointed as regular Sub -Inspector of Police and joined the post on 4.1.1973. Thereafter he was given promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police with effect from 12.3.1991. A provisional gradation list of Inspectors of Police was circulated with the forwarding letter dated 23.6.1999 in which his name was shown at SI. No. 135. It was claimed by him that the previous gradation list alleged to have been prepared in 1979 showing the seniority of Sub -Inspectors of Police of different categories was never circulated and as such his position in that gradation list was not known to him and when the promotion was made in the year 1991 he had no idea about the gradation list which was prepared in 1999. When a combined gradation list was prepared, he submitted a representation, which was turned down on the ground that it was a time barred representation. Grievance was also made that persons who joined service after him were shown much above him. Similarly, O.A. No. 203 of 2001 was filed by Sushanta Kumar Biswal and four others who were recruited as regular Sub -Inspectors of Police challenging the gradation list published in 1999. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 8.12.2005 has set aside the gradation list prepared on 1st April, 1999 on the ground that the same was not properly circulated and has issued a direction to the opposite parties to take steps for preparation of final gradation list in the manner directed by the Tribunal and thereafter to take effective steps for promotion of the respective candidates on the basis of the seniority fixed in the final gradation list. The Tribunal while disposing of the Original Applications held that there was no proof in the counter affidavit filed by the State Government that the gradation list of Sub -Inspectors of Police was ever circulated and as such the preparation of gradation list of Sub -Inspectors of Police cannot be construed to be a final one. Combined gradation list was published in 1999, though promotions were given 8 -9 years before the publication of the combined gradation list, which shows that the gradation list was not properly circulated among the candidates.

(3.) THOUGH all these writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of the Tribunal, the dispute centers round the fixation of seniority between Sub -Inspectors appointed directly in the police force and those who were appointed as Steno Sub -Inspectors of Police. In other words, the question is whether seniority of Steno Sub -Inspector of Police should be reckoned from the date of their appointment as Steno Sub -Inspector as such or from the date of passing the police training course.