[ad_1]
Orissa High Court
Pramath Kumar Mallick vs State Of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite … on 28 March, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.31396 of 2024
Along with
batch of Writ Petitions
(In W.P.(C) No.31396 of 2024)
(In the matters of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Pramath Kumar Mallick .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sidheswar Mallik, Adv.
Mr. S. S. Pratap, Adv.
Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, Adv.
Mr. Surya Narayan Patnaik, Adv.
Mr. A. K. Jena, Adv.
Mr. R. K. Behera, Adv.
Mr. Avijit Patnaik, Adv.
Mr. C. S. Panda. Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Sonak Mishra, AGA,
Mr. S. Patnaik, Adv.,
Mr. Biswabihari Mohanty, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-16.01.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-28.03.2025
W.P.(C) No.31396 of 2024Along with W.P.(C) No.18010 of 2020,
W.P.(C) No.3739 of 2021, W.P.(C) No.25143 of 2021, W.P.(C)
No.38458 of 2021, W.P.(C) No.11638 of 2022, W.P.(C) No.32067 of
2022, W.P.(C) No.2434 of 2023, W.P.(C) No.3722 of 2023, W.P.(C)
No.41643 of 2023, W.P.(C) No.11551 of 2024
Page 1 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in all the above-
mentioned Writ Petitions, the same were heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment. However, this Court felt it
apposite to deal with the W.P.(C) No.32067 of 2022 as the leading case
for proper adjudication of all these cases.
2. In W.P.(C) No.32067of 2022, the Petitioners who are at present working
as Administrative Officers in the Odisha Heads of the Department
common cadre working in different heads of the Departments under the
Administrative Control of different Departments of Government, for
the year 2022, have sought for a direction from this Court to the
Opposite Parties to fix their names in the appropriate place (at Sl.
Nos.13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 respectively)
in the gradation list of Administrative Officers of the Odisha Heads of
the Department common cadre.
3. The Petitioners have also challenged the final common gradation list of
Administrative Officers dated 02.11.2022/Annexure-1 wherein the
Petitioners are placed much below their juniors in clear violation of
provisions contained under Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation
Assistance, Rules) 1990 and G.A. Department resolution dated
09.09.2021.
4. Moreover, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31396 of 2024 has challenged the
order dated 30.11.2024 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Home
Department, Government of Odisha rejecting his claim for convening
DPC for consideration of promotion to the rank of Senior
Page 2 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
Administrative Officer on the plea that an interim order has been
passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.32067 of 2022 directing that, as an
interim measure, DPC may proceed, however, final decision of the DPC
shall be kept in a sealed cover and the same shall not be intimated
without leave of the Court.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 5. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The petitioners in this case are currently serving as Administrative
Officers in the Odisha Heads of Departments Common cadre. They are
posted in various Heads of Departments under the administrative
control of different Government departments.
(ii) The petitioners were originally appointed under the Rehabilitation
Assistance Scheme in the years 1985, 1986, and 1987. Their names have
consistently appeared at appropriate places in the gradation lists, in
accordance with their year of appointment. However, in the preparation
of the recent common cadre gradation list, their positions were
unexpectedly and significantly altered. Instead of being placed in
accordance with their seniority, their names were listed at Serial Nos.
57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, and 76, which are much
lower in the list and beneath officers who were appointed in later years.
More specifically, Petitioners No. 1 to 4, who were recruited in 1985,
should have been placed below other 1985 recruits and above those
recruited in 1986. Similarly, Petitioners No. 5 to 7, who were recruited in
1986, ought to be positioned below other 1986 recruits but above those
recruited in 1987. Petitioners No. 8 to 15, having been appointed in 1987,
Page 3 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
should be ranked below the other 1987 recruits but above those
recruited in 1988. It is argued that, contrary to this logical and rule-
based sequence, the final gradation list published by the opposite party
on 02.11.2022 reflects an erroneous placement of the petitioners, placing
them below officers recruited in 1986, 1987, 1988, and even 1989.
(iii) The petitioners had earlier raised objections to the provisional/tentative
gradation list dated 06.10.2022 by submitting formal representations to
Opposite Party No. 2. However, their objections were not considered,
and the final gradation list was published without any revision in their
placement. As a result, the petitioners now seek a direction from this
Court to fix their names in the appropriate positions in the gradation list
in accordance with the rules and with all consequential service benefits.
(iv) The petitioners further challenge the legality and validity of the final
common gradation list dated 02.11.2022 allegedly issued in violation of
the provisions laid down in the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation
Assistance) Rules, 1990 and the General Administration (G.A.)
Department Resolution dated 09.09.2021. Hence, this Writ Petition.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Petitioners were appointed under the Rehabilitation Assistance
Scheme in the years 1985, 1986, and 1987 respectively. Their positions in
the gradation list were erroneously fixed below all candidates
appointed in the respective years of 1985, 1986, and 1987. The fixation of
Page 4 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42seniority ought to have been made in strict adherence to the provisions
of Rule 13 of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules,
1990, read with the General Administration Department Resolution
dated 09.09.2021.
(ii) As per Rule 13 of the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance)
Rules, 1990, the seniority of a person appointed under these Rules shall
be fixed below those appointed in the same calendar year through
regular recruitment under the rules framed in accordance with Article
309 of the Constitution. In all other cases, seniority shall be determined
based on the date of joining the post.
(iii) Furthermore, Rule 15 of the said Rules stipulates that the provisions of
the Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 shall
prevail over any other recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution. Rule 13, read with Rule 15, thus clarifies that appointees
under the RA Rules shall be placed below regular appointees of the
same calendar year, and these Rules shall override any contrary
provisions, including those in the Orissa Ex-Servicemen (Recruitment to
the State Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1985.
(iv) In the final gradation list dated 02.11.2022, individuals at serial numbers
6, 7, 8, 20, 21, 22, 26, 33, 37, 40, 43, 44, 48, and 54, who are junior to the
Petitioners have been improperly placed above them, in clear
contravention of the aforementioned Rules and the G.A. Department
Resolution dated 09.09.2021.
(v) In the provisional gradation list dated 06.10.2022, the Petitioners were
placed below candidates appointed between 1985 and 1990. However,
Page 5 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, their seniority
ought to have been fixed above the appointees of the years 1986, 1987,
and 1988.
(vi) A tentative common gradation list of Administrative Officers serving
under various Heads of Departments of the Government of Odisha was
prepared for the year 2022-23. Vide Memo No. 33738 dated 06.10.2022,
objections were invited from concerned officers. The Petitioners
submitted their objections on 14.10.2022 to Opposite Party No. 2, clearly
asserting that, being appointees of the years 1985, 1986, and 1987, their
seniority should be fixed accordingly; below the regular recruits of their
respective years but above recruits of subsequent years.
(vii) The Supreme Court, in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro,1
categorically held that seniority among direct recruits and other
appointees cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of vacancy
or initiation of recruitment, but from the actual date of appointment
within the same calendar year, in terms of the relevant service rules.
(viii) In view of the said judgment, the General Administration Department
issued a Resolution dated 09.09.2021 (Annexure-4), clarifying the inter-
se seniority between direct recruits and those appointed under the
Rehabilitation Assistance Rules in a given calendar year. It was
explicitly stated therein that the seniority of appointees under the
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme shall be fixed below those appointed
through regular recruitment in that calendar year.
1
(2020) 5 SCC 689
Page 6 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
(ix) Despite the settled legal position and the binding Circular dated
09.09.2021, Opposite Party No. 2 proceeded to prepare a tentative
gradation list that is in clear violation of the aforementioned Rules and
Circular, rendering the said list arbitrary, illegal, and mala fide.
(x) Although the Petitioners duly submitted objections to the tentative
gradation list dated 06.10.2022, Opposite Party No. 2, without verifying
the applicable law and the G.A. Department Circular dated 09.09.2021,
summarily rejected the Petitioners’ claims on 27.10.2022 and published
the final gradation list on 02.11.2022.
(xi) The Petitioners further submit that their seniority, fixed since their
initial appointments under Rules 13 and 15 of the Odisha Civil Services
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, has been consistently
recognized for over 35 years. However, the final gradation list of
Administrative Officers published on 02.11.2022 places them at serial
numbers 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, and 76; below
individuals appointed in 1986 to 1990, despite the Petitioners being
appointees of the years 1985, 1986, and 1987.
(xii) Consequently, the Petitioners filed objections to the tentative gradation
list, requesting that their seniority be corrected and fixed at serial
numbers 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35,
respectively. The failure of the Opposite Parties to fix the Petitioners’
seniority in accordance with Rules 13 and 15 of the OCS (RA) Rules,
1990 and the G.A. Department Resolution dated 09.09.2021 is illegal,
arbitrary, and in derogation of settled service jurisprudence.
Page 7 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
(xiii) In light of the foregoing, it is submitted that this Court may be pleased
to direct the Opposite Parties/State to rectify the gradation list and fix
the seniority of the Petitioners appropriately i.e., below the regular
recruits of the year 1985, but above the recruits of the years 1986 to 1990,
in accordance with law.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
7. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) It is submitted that the General Administration and Public Grievance
Department has restructured the Odisha Ministerial Services (Assistants
and Section Officers) Cadre in the offices of the Heads of Departments
and the Odisha Heads of Departments Establishment Officers Cadre for
51 Heads of Departments vide their Resolution No.2372 dated
24.01.2019. Thereafter, Odisha Heads of Department (Method of
Recruitment and Condition of Service of Establishment Officer,
Administrative Officer and Senior Administrative Officer of Heads of
Department) Common Cadre Rules, 2019 (hereinafter “Common Cadre
Rules, 2019”) came into force on 02.03.2019.
(ii) This new cadre consisted of posts of Establishment Officers as the base
level post to be promoted from amongst the Section Officers of the
Heads of Departments. Rule 7(3) of the Common Cadre Rules, 2019
speaks:
“The position in the select list prepared by the recruiting
agencies for the post of Junior Assistant shall be the factorPage 8 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42for determination of inter-se seniority in each grade of
Section Officer, Establishment Officer, and Administrative
Officer:
Provided that in case of non-availability of select list
prepared by the recruiting agencies, the date of appointment
into the service as Junior Assistant shall be the factor for
determination of inter se seniority for preparation of
common gradation list of Section Officers, Establishment
and Administrative Officers. In case the date of
appointment of two or more officers is same, the officer elder
in age will he assigned higher position in the gradation list
over the younger in age.”
(iii) As per the above rule, information obtained from different Heads of
Departments and Provisional Gradation List of Section Officers of
Heads of Departments Common Cadre was prepared placing all the
direct recruits of particular recruitment year as per their position in the
Select List prepared by the recruiting agencies for the post of Junior
Assistant first, thereafter, Junior appointed Rehabilitation Assistance
Scheme following the Rule 13 of Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation
Assistance Scheme) Rules, 1990 and then the Junior Assistants
otherwise appointed vide Home Department letter No.57962, dated
30.12.2019, inviting objection, if any, within a period of 15 days. Some
objections were received from Rehabilitation Assistance appointees
regarding fixation of their inter-seniority fixed below the direct recruits
of particular recruitment.
(iv) The representations/objections filed by the petitioners on different dates
were examined and it was ascertained that they joined the service as
Page 9 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
Junior Assistant in the year 1985, 1986, and 1987 on being appointed
under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Their seniority in the
gradation list of Junior Assistant, Senior Assistant, and Section Officer
under Odisha Ministerial Heads of Department Method of Recruitment
and Conditions of Service Rules, 1994 was prepared correctly following
provisions of OCS (RA) Rules by placing him at the end of all recruits of
the calendar year 1985, 1986 and 1987 respectively.
(v) But while preparing the provisional gradation list of Section Officers of
HoDs under Common Cadre Rules, 2019 by Home Department, their
names have been placed below the persons who joined in the year 1990.
(vi) Regarding fixation of inter-se-seniority, views of GA& PG Department
was obtained as stated below:
“1. The direct recruits of a particular year of the
advertisement shall en-bloc be placed at the top of the
gradation list and their names shall be arranged
according to their respective position in the merit list
irrespective of their date/year of appointment.
2. The RA appointees of the said year shall be treated as
the recruit of that year and shall be placed at the bottom
in the gradation list of that year.
3. In the year if there are two advertisements made by
different recruiting agencies, the candidates appointed as
per the first advertisement shall be placed en-bloc above
the candidates appointed as per the second advertisement
and the RA appointees of that year shall be placed at the
bottom of gradation list.
4. In other years in which the advertisement was not
published for direct recruitment and the RA candidatesPage 10 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42were appointed, they will be the only candidate of that
year, in the gradation list.”
(vii) Accordingly, the gradation list of Section Officers was finalized vide
Home Department letter No.26283, dated 07.08.2020 wherein the
petitioners were placed at SI. No.216, 217, 222, 223, 226, 227, 231, 234,
235, 237, 239, 241, 242, 243, & 245. Based upon the said gradation list,
they have got promotion to the rank of Establishment Officer under
Heads of Departments Common Cadre.
(viii) Meanwhile, GA & PG Department has issued Resolution No.24188,
dated 09.09.2021 regarding fixation of inter-se-seniority wherein Point
No.4 speaks that the inter-se-seniority of the employees appointed
under Rehabilitation Assistant Rules in a calendar year shall be fixed
below the persons recruited and appointed in that grade or cadre in that
particular year.
(ix) Since, objections were again raised by the RA recruits regarding inter-
se-seniority, the Department further viewed that there is no need to
update the gradation list of officers of Heads of Departments Common
Cadre published in November & December, 2021.
(x) Taking into above views/ Resolution of the GA &PG Department, the
Provisional gradation list of Establishment Officer of 163 (One hundred
sixty three) Establishment Officers of Heads of Departments Common
Cadre was finalized and published vide Home Department letter
No.41296, dated 23.11.2021 wherein the petitioners were placed Sl. No.
04, 105, 108, 109, 111, 112, 115, 117, 118, 121, 122, 123, 124, and 125.
Thereafter, the petitioners have got the promotion to the next higher
Page 11 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
rank of Administrative Officer from the said gradation list of
Establishment Officer vide Home Department Notification No.5225,
dated 18.02.2022.
(xi) While the matter stood thus, the tentative gradation list of
Administrative Officers of Heads of Departments Common Cadre was
published on 06.10.2022 inviting objection, if any, from concerned
Administrative Officers vide this Department letter No.33737 dated
06.10.2022.
(xii) Some objections were received again from Rehabilitation Assistance
appointees including the petitioners regarding fixation of their inter-se-
seniority fixed below the direct recruits of particular recruitment.
(xiii) The Petitioners were not selected by any recruiting agency, rather, they
were appointed under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in 1985, 1986,
and 1987. Further, the revised final gradation list shows that the
candidates selected by the recruiting agency i.e. Board of Revenue for
the advertisement year 1985 have been correctly placed ahead of the
Petitioners as per the provision of Rule 7 of the Common Cadre Rules,
2019 as well as views of GA & PG Department.
(xiv) The present Gradation List of Administrative Officers of Heads of
Departments Common Cadre has been finalized with above views of
GA & PG Department, cited Resolution and taking into consideration
the representations of Rehabilitation Assistance appointees including
the petitioners and published vide Home Department letter No.36952,
dated 02.11.2022.
Page 12 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
(xv) Therefore, he contends that the allegations made by the Petitioners is
baseless and deserves no merit for consideration. The Petitioners are not
entitled to any relief. Hence, this Writ Petition may be dismissed.
8. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.10 earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions
(i) Orissa Heads of Department E.O., A.O., & Senior A.O. Common Cadre
Rules, 2019 was made in supersession of Orissa Heads of Department
Establishment Officers Recruitment Rules, 1991 as per preamble of 2019
Rules which clearly presupposes that the Common Cadre Rules are not
a Rule framed in supersession of O.M.S. Heads of Departments Rules
1975 as amended by Amendment Rules of 1982 under which all the
appointments in favour of both the Petitioners and the Opposite Parties
were made at the entry grade of Junior Assistants and as such O.M.S.
Heads of Departments Rules, 1975 as amended by Amendment Rules of
1982 can have no material for determination of seniority in the grade of
E.O. under Orissa Heads of Department E.O., A.O. & Senior A.O.
Common Cadre Rules, 2019.
(ii) Hence, any seniority fixed at the initial entry grade of Junior Assistants
of Heads of Departments inter-se, more particularly, between the
Petitioners and others at the entry grade does not have any relevance
now in view of promotions made after the initial grade of Junior
Assistants to Senior Assistant then to Section Officers in the individual
Heads of Departments cadre to which each of the Petitioners belong
separately.
Page 13 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
(iii) Moreover, there was no common seniority list of Junior Assistants
prepared of all Heads of Departments earlier reflecting inter-se seniority
among the Petitioners and the Opp. Party Nos.4 to 23 irrespective of
their appointment and belongingness to different Heads of Department
cadres.
(iv) Moreover, there is no order placed on record whereby the Government
has specifically relaxed the provisions of O.M.S. Heads of Departments
Rules, 1975 as amended by Amendment Rules of 1982 in order to issue
appointment orders in favour of the Petitioners by invoking the Power
available under Rule 14 of O.M.S. Heads of Departments Rules 1975.
Hence, in absence of any such document placed on record it cannot be
accepted that the appointment of the Petitioners are in relaxation of the
O.M.S. Heads of Departments Rules, 1975 as amended by Amendment
Rules of 1982.
(v) Hence, the claim of the Petitioners pertaining to fixation of seniority on
the basis of their earlier appointment under Rehabilitation Scheme
being confined to only those appointed in that particular Heads of
Department cadre cannot be made the basis for determination of
seniority in the new common cadre of E.O. & A.O. ignoring the date of
promotions of all such individuals members with merit and suitability
with due regard to seniority as the criteria for such promotion in all
those grades of Senior Assistant, S.O., & E.O. in their individual Heads
of Departments and in E.O. & A.O. under the common cadre. Hence,
the claim of seniority put forth by the Petitioners relying upon their
earlier appointment under RAS in the initial entry Grade of Junior
Page 14 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
Assistant in a particular Heads of Department cannot be the basis for
determination and fixation of seniority in favour of the above Opposite
Parties.
(vi) Besides, Rule 7(3) & Rule 14 of the Common Cadre Rules, 2019 does not
have any applicability to the claim of the Petitioners particularly when
the aforesaid provisions clearly refers to the select lists prepared by the
Recruiting Agency and its non-availability under proviso appended to
Rule-7. Moreover, since Rule 7(3) or the proviso does not specifically
mention about appointment made under Rehabilitation Assistance
Scheme, the Petitioners cannot be permitted to import something into
the Rules to claim benefit in their favour.
(vii) Furthermore, Rule 7(3) and proviso appended thereto as well as Rule-14
of common cadre Rules 2019 has to be understood under the backdrop
of fact that as per the O.M.S. Heads of Departments Recruitment Rules
1975 Board of Revenue was the “Recruiting Agency” or “Examining
Body” which was conducting examination and recommending names
for appointment to different Heads of Departments as per their
requirement from a common merit list as Junior Assistants. Since all the
posts of S.O.& E.O. are available in the Heads of Departments and all
those appointees from the common merit list are now brought into a
common cadre weightage to their respective position in the merit list of
Junior Assistants has been prescribed under the Rules. Hence, the claim
put forth by the Petitioners who are appointees under Rehabilitation
Assistant schemes only cannot be permitted to claim benefit of Rules-
Page 15 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
7(3) & 14 being oblivious of the background of their limited nature of
appointments and lack of specific provision of Rules.
(viii) In the present case, the Opp. Parties were promoted at an earlier point
of time in both the Grades of “Establishment Officer” and
“Administrative Officer” which is clearly evident from the Gradation
list and has been admitted by the Petitioners as well. Moreover, both the
promotions in the Grade of E.O. & A.O. were made by applying O.C.S.
criteria for promotion Rules, 1992 as the basis where the criteria is
merit- cum-suitability with due regard to seniority where merit but not
seniority is the primary criterion. Since, each individual Petitioners have
neither challenged the promotion of each of the Opp. Parties and have
also not challenged the gradation lists in appropriate Writ Petitions, the
seniority fixed which is a consequence of such earlier promotions got
crystallized and vested in favour of the Opp. Parties and as such cannot
be unsettled now in view of settled principles of law.
IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
9. Heard Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the documents
placed before this Court.
10. The core issue in the present matter concerns a dispute over inter-se
seniority between two distinct categories of appointees in public
service: the petitioners, who were appointed under the Rehabilitative
Assistance Scheme, and certain direct recruits who were appointed in
subsequent years. The grievance of the petitioners arises from their
Page 16 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
placement lower in the cumulative seniority list despite having been
appointed earlier in point of time than the said direct recruits.
11. It is the case of the petitioners that such placement is not only unjust but
also contrary to the settled principles of service jurisprudence. The
respondents, however, seek to justify this placement by relying on the
chronology of vacancy notifications. Specifically, they contend that
although the direct recruits were appointed after the petitioners, the
vacancies for such direct recruitment had been advertised prior to the
actual appointments of the petitioners under the Rehabilitative
Assistance Scheme. On this basis, the direct recruits have been accorded
higher seniority.
12. Thus, the controversy in the present case crystallizes into the following
legal issue: whether, in matters of determining seniority, the effective
date for reckoning seniority of direct recruits can be pegged to the date
on which the vacancy was advertised or notified, as opposed to the
actual date of their appointment and assumption of duties?
13. It is no longer res integra in law that under service jurisprudence,
seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbent is yet to be
borne in the cadre. This legal position has been consistently upheld by
constitutional courts, emphasizing that the determination of seniority
must be rooted in the actual date of appointment or entry into the
service cadre in accordance with the applicable rules. The Supreme
Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that notional or retrospective
seniority is impermissible unless specifically provided for under
Page 17 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
statutory rules or sanctioned by a judicial pronouncement in
exceptional circumstances.
14. In State of Bihar v. Arbind Jee,2 the respondent applied for
compassionate appointment upon the death of his father, a Home
Guard, and was provisionally shortlisted in 1985, subject to a physical
fitness certificate. Upon being found medically unfit, his appointment
was denied. Pursuant to a direction from the Patna High Court, and in
light of his original shortlisting for the post of Adhinayak Lipik, the
Supreme Court directed his appointment to the said post, which was
effected on 27.02.1996. In 2002, the respondent sought seniority with
effect from 1985, which was rejected on the ground that his
appointment was made only in 1996. The Supreme Court held that as
following:
“The jurisprudence in the field of service law would advise
us that retrospective seniority cannot be claimed from a date
when an employee is not even borne in service. It is also
necessary to bear in mind that retrospective seniority unless
directed by court or expressly provided by the applicable
Rules, should not be allowed, as in so doing, others who had
earlier entered service, will be impacted.”
“In this situation, the seniority balance cannot be tilted
against those who entered service much before the
respondent. Seniority benefit can accrue only after a person
joins service and to say that benefits can be earned
retrospectively would be erroneous.”
2
2021 SCC OnLine SC 821
Page 18 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
15. In J.C. Patnaik v. State of Orissa,3 the Supreme Court considered the
question whether the year in which the vacancy accrues can have any
bearing for the purpose of determining the seniority irrespective of the
fact when the person is actually recruited. The Court observed that
there could be time lag between the year when the vacancy accrues and
the year when the final recruitment is made. Referring to the word
“recruited” occurring in the Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941 the
Supreme Court held that person cannot be said to have been recruited
to the service only on the basis of initiation of process of recruitment but
he is borne in the post only when, formal appointment order is issued.
The relevant paragraph is produced hereinafter:
“The only other contention which requires consideration is
the one raised by Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior
counsel appearing for the intervenors to the effect that
expression `recruitment’ and `appointment’ have two
different concepts in the service jurisprudence and,
therefore, when Rule 26 uses the expression `recruited’ it
must be a stage earlier to the issuance of appointment letter
and logically should mean when the selection process started
and that appears to be the intendment of the Rule Makers in
Rule 26. We are, however, not persuaded to accept this
contention since under the scheme of Rules a person can be
said to be recruited into service only on being appointed to
the rank of Assistant Engineer, as would, appear from Rule
5 and Rule 6. Then again incase of direct recruits though
the process of recruitment starts when the Public Service
Commission invites applications under Rule 10 but until
and unless the Government makes the final selection under
rule 15 and issues appropriate orders after the selected
candidates are examined by the Medical Board, it cannot be3
1998 (2) SCR 676Page 19 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42said that a person has been recruited to the service. That
being the position it is difficult for us to hold that in the
Seniority rule the expression `recruited’ should be
interpreted to mean when the selection process really
started. That apart the said expression `recruited’ applies
not only to the direct recruits but also to the promotees. In
case of direct recruits the process of recruitment starts with
the invitation of application by the Commission and in case
of promotees it starts with the nomination made by the Chief
Engineer under rule 16. But both in the case of direct
recruits as well as in the case of promotees the final selection
vests with the State Government under rules 15 and 18
respectively and until such final selection is made and
appropriate orders passed thereon no person can be said to
have been recruited to the service. In this view of the matter
the only appropriate and logical construction that can be
made of Rule 26 is the date of the order under which the
persons are appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer. It
the crucial date for determination of seniority under the said
rule. mr. Raju Ramachandran’s contention, therefore,
cannot be sustained.”
16. In Shitla Prasad Shukla v. State of UP,4 the Supreme Court held that
seniority must follow the principle of first entry into the regular stream,
and courts will not interfere with its determination by the competent
authority unless there is a violation of statutory rules or principles of
natural justice. The relevant excerpt is produced hereinbelow:
“The late comers to the regular stream cannot steal a march
over the early arrivals in the regular queue. On principle the
appellant cannot therefore succeed. What is more in matters
of seniority the Court does not exercise jurisdiction akin to
appellate jurisdiction against the determination by the
competent authority, so long as the competent authority has4
(1986)(Supp.) SCC 185Page 20 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42acted bona fide and acted on principles of fairness and fair
play. In a matter where there is no rule or regulation
governing the situation or where there is one, but is not
violated, the Court will not overturn the determination
unless it would be unfair not to do so…”
17. Then, again in Ganga Vishan Gujrati and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan,5
the Supreme Court reiterated its stance and held the following:
“…retrospective seniority cannot be granted to an employee
from a date when the employee was not borne on a cadre.
Seniority amongst members of the same grade has to be
counted from the date of initial entry into the grade.”
18. Accordingly, an incumbent cannot seek seniority over others merely on
the basis of earlier selection, recommendation, or any notional
consideration if the formal induction into the cadre occurred at a later
date. This principle safeguards the integrity of service records and
ensures uniformity in promotional and other service-related
entitlements.
19. However, in Union of India v. N.R. Parmar,6 the Supreme Court held
that seniority of direct recruits should be counted from the date of
initiation of the recruitment process, provided the appointment is made
within a reasonable time. This judgment introduced the concept of
retrospective seniority from the date of vacancy notification or selection,
even if the actual appointment took place later; thereby allowing them
to “catch up” for delays in the recruitment process beyond their control.
5
(2019) 16 SCC 28
6
(2012) 13 SCC 340
Page 21 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
20. This approach, marking a significant departure from established
jurisprudence on the fixation of seniority, led to practical inconsistencies
and administrative challenges in cadre management, particularly in
cases where appointees had been discharging duties well before direct
recruits were formally appointed. It effectively diluted the well-settled
principle that seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the
individual is not yet borne in the cadre.
21. This position was revisited and decisively overruled in K.
Meghachandra Singh (supra), where the Supreme Court marked a
jurisprudential correction and clarified that seniority must be reckoned
strictly from the date of actual appointment to the cadre and not from
any notional or retrospective date. The Court held that the N.R. Parmar
doctrine had led to anomalous situations where individuals who joined
service later could be placed above those already in service. Reaffirming
foundational principles of service law, the Court realigned the law with
the fundamental service jurisprudence principle that seniority flows
from actual entry into service. The relevant excerpt is produced
hereinbelow:
37. From above, it is not only apparent that the above OM
was only to be given prospective effect from 1.1.2018 but it
contains an express acknowledgement that this was not the
position prior to the issuance of the OM and that a different
Rule was followed earlier in the State. The conclusion is,
therefore, inevitable that at least prior to 1.1.2018, direct
recruits cannot claim that their seniority should be reckoned
from the date of initiation of recruitment proceedings and
not from the date of actual appointment.
Page 22 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
38. When we carefully read the judgment in N. R. Parmar
(Supra), it appears to us that the referred OMs (dated
07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986) were not properly construed in
the judgment. Contrary to the eventual finding, the said
two OMs had made it clear that seniority of the direct
recruits be declared only from the date of appointment and
not from the date of initiation of recruitment process. But
surprisingly, the judgment while referring to the
illustration given in the OM in fact overlooks the effect of
the said illustration. According to us, the illustration
extracted in the N.R. Parmar (Supra) itself, makes it clear
that the vacancies which were intended for direct
recruitment in a particular year (1986) which were filled in
the next year (1987) could be taken into consideration only
in the subsequent year’s seniority list but not in the
seniority list of 1986. In fact, this was indicated in the two
OMs dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986 and that is why the
Government issued the subsequent OM on 03.03.2008 by
way of clarification of the two earlier OMs.
39. At this stage, we must also emphasize that the
Court in N.R. Parmar (Supra) need not have observed
that the selected candidate cannot be blamed for
administrative delay and the gap between initiation
of process and appointment. Such observation is
fallacious in as much as none can be identified as
being a selected candidate on the date when the
process of recruitment had commenced. On that day, a
body of persons aspiring to be appointed to the
vacancy intended for direct recruits was not in
existence. The persons who might respond to an
advertisement cannot have any service-related rights,
not to talk of right to have their seniority counted
from the date of the advertisement. In other words,
only on completion of the process, the applicant
morphs into a selected candidate and, therefore,
unnecessary observation was made in N.R. Parmar
Page 23 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
(Supra) to the effect that the selected candidate cannot
be blamed for the administrative delay. In the same
context, we may usefully refer to the ratio in vs.
Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, where it was
held even upon empanelment, an appointee does not
acquire any right.”
(Emphasis supplied)
22. The counsel for the Opp. Parties have not tried to reason against the
dictum of the Apex Court in K. Meghachandra Singh, however,
submitted that K. Meghachandra Singh clarifies that if there is a rule to
determine the inter-se seniority, the said judgment has no application.
In this case, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, Common Cadre
Rule, 2019 will only have the application to this case for determination
of inter-se seniority. From the aforesaid clear position of law, now let us
see the fact involved in this case.
23. The counsel of the Opp. Parties highlighted Rule 14 takes care of the
fixation of inter-se seniority to the number of the staffs under this Rule,
which reads as follows:
“14. The inter-se seniority:-
The inter-se seniority of the officers appointed to any post in
the service in a particular year shall be in the order in which
their names are arranged in the select list of Junior
Assistants from which they were appointed.”
24. Now, K. Meghachandra Singh inter alia expressly held that seniority in a
service must be determined in accordance with the applicable service
rules, with the date of entry into the service or the date of substantive
appointment serving as the most reliable basis for such determination.
Page 24 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
However, it is mentioned that seniority cannot be assigned from the
date of vacancy or granted retrospectively unless ‘explicitly’ provided
for under the relevant rules, as doing so would unjustly prejudice those
already validly appointed and borne in the cadre during the intervening
period. The Supreme Court relied on its previous judgements in Pawan
Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh and State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs.
Ashok Kumar Srivastava and Anr and held as following:
“31. We may also benefit by referring to the Judgment in
State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Ashok Kumar
Srivastava and Anr. This judgment is significant since this
is rendered after the N.R. Parmar (supra) decision. Here the
Court approved the ratio in Pawan Pratap Singh and Ors.
vs. Reevan Singh & Ors., and concurred with the view that
seniority should not be reckoned retrospectively
unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant
service Rules. The Supreme Court held that seniority
cannot be given for an employee who is yet to be borne in
the cadre and by doing so it may adversely affect the
employees who have been appointed validly in the
meantime. The law so declared in Ashok Kumar Srivastava
(supra) being the one appealing to us, is profitably extracted
as follows:
24. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has drawn
inspiration from the recent authority in Pawan Pratap
Singh v. Reevan Singh where the Court after referring to
earlier authorities in the field has culled out certain
principles out of which the following being the relevant are
produced below:
“45. (ii) Inter se seniority in a particular
service has to be determined as per the service
rules. The date of entry in a particular service orPage 25 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42the date of substantive appointment is the safest
criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one
officer or the other or between one group of officers
and the other recruited from different sources. Any
departure therefrom in the statutory rules,
executive instructions or otherwise must be
consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution.
…………………
45. (iv) The seniority cannot be reckoned from
the date of occurrence of the vacancy and
cannot be given retrospectively unless it is so
expressly provided by the relevant service
rules. It is so because seniority cannot be given on
retrospective basis when an employee has not even
been borne in the cadre and by doing so it may
adversely affect the employees who have been
appointed validly in the meantime.”
25. It is evident from the judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh that the
Supreme Court unequivocally disapproved of determining seniority
based on the date of vacancy, however, the Court carved out a limited
exception, permitting such determination only where the relevant
service rules explicitly provide for seniority to be reckoned from the
date of vacancy or advertisement. In this context, the Opposite Parties’
reliance on Rule 14 is of little assistance, as the said rule does not
expressly stipulate seniority determination based on either the date of
vacancy or advertisement. Furthermore, the reliance placed by learned
counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 on the views expressed by the GA &
PG Department is equally unavailing; as such administrative
Page 26 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
instructions do not possess the force of statutory rules and cannot
override or dilute the binding precedent laid down by the Supreme
Court or the settled principles of service jurisprudence.
26. Addressing the next significant contention raised by the Opposite
Parties concerning the applicability of the said Rules to the issue of inter
se seniority, it was argued that the judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh
would have limited applicability in the present matter. It was submitted
that although the Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh overruled
N.R. Parmar for having erroneously departed from the settled principle
that seniority cannot be claimed from a date prior to one’s actual
induction into the cadre, the Court simultaneously protected seniority
already determined under the N.R. Parmar regime, thereby limiting the
retrospective operation of its ruling. The relevant paragraph is
produced hereinbelow:
“39. The judgment in N.R. Parmar relating to the Central
Government employees cannot in our opinion,
automatically apply to the Manipur State Police Officers,
governed by the MPS Rules, 1965. We also feel that N.R.
Parmar had incorrectly distinguished the long-standing
seniority determination principles propounded in, inter alia,
Jagdish Ch. Patnaik, Suraj Prakash Gupta v. State of J&K,
and Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh. These three
judgments and several others with like enunciation on the
law for determination of seniority make it abundantly clear
that under service jurisprudence, seniority cannot be
claimed from a date when the incumbent is yet to be borne
in the cadre. In our considered opinion, the law on the
issue is correctly declared in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik and
consequently we disapprove the norms on assessment
of inter se seniority, suggested in N.R. Parmar.
Page 27 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42Accordingly, the decision in N.R. Parmar is overruled.
However, it is made clear that this decision will not
affect the inter se seniority already based on N.R.
Parmar and the same is protected. This decision will
apply prospectively except where seniority is to be
fixed under the relevant rules from the date of
vacancy/the date of advertisement.”
(Emphasis supplied)
27. Be that as it may, counsel for Opposite Party No. 11 contended that the
petitioners are governed by the provisions of the Common Cadre Rules,
2019 which were notified in the Official Gazette on 15.03.2019 and,
accordingly, came into force from the said date. It was further
submitted that as on the said date, the judgment in K. Meghachandra
Singh had not yet been rendered, the same having been delivered
subsequently on 19.11.2019. Thus, the relevant rules and their
prescribed formula for determination of seniority are protected from the
prospective application of the judgment in K. Meghachandra, provided
such rules explicitly stipulate seniority to be reckoned from the date of
vacancy or advertisement, in conformity with the exception carved out
by the Court.
28. Here, Rule 7 sub-rule 3 Common Cadre Rules, 2019 must be studied.
“7.
……
(3) The position in the select list prepared by the recruiting
agencies for the post of Junior Assistant shall be the factor
for determination of inter-se-seniority in each grade ofPage 28 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42Section Officer, Establishment Officer and Administrative
Officer.
Provided that in case of non-availability of select
list prepared by the recruiting agencies, the date of
appointment into the service as Junior Assistant
shall be the factor for determination of inter-se-
seniority for preparation of common gradation list
of Section Officers, Establishment Officers and
Administrative Officers. In case, the date of
appointment of two or more officers is same, the officer
elder in age will be assigned higher position in the
gradation list over the younger in age.”
(Emphasis supplied)
29. A perusal of the abovementioned provision makes it evident that the
determining factor for inter se seniority among Junior Assistants, and
consequently in the grades of Section Officer, Establishment Officer,
and Administrative Officer, is the position secured in the select list
prepared by the recruiting agency. However, the proviso to the said
rule clarifies that in the absence of such a select list, the date of
appointment to the post of Junior Assistant shall be the determining
factor for fixing inter se seniority.
30. This clearly demonstrates that even within the statutory framework, the
date of appointment has been contemplated as a fallback basis for
determination of seniority. Therefore, any construction of the rules must
account for the express legislative intent that seniority is not to be
assigned retrospectively or notionally from the date of vacancy, but
only on the basis of actual selection and appointment, in line with the
jurisprudence laid down in K. Meghachandra Singh.
Page 29 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
31. Now, to settle the question of occupied fields; it is evident that the
seniority position of the petitioners vis-à-vis the Opposite Parties in the
present matter was never conclusively settled on the basis of the
principles laid down in N.R. Parmar. Although the Common Cadre
Rules, 2019 were notified prior to the pronouncement of the judgment
in K. Meghachandra Singh, the method adopted for determination of
inter-se seniority relied upon the select list purportedly prepared by the
recruiting agencies following the recruitment of both the petitioners and
the Opposite Parties; appointments that occurred well before even the
N.R. Parmar decision.
32. As discussed previously, service jurisprudence has consistently
favoured the reckoning of seniority from the date of actual appointment
into the cadre, rather than any notional or retrospective date
notwithstanding the aberration of N.R. Parmar. In the present case,
there is no indication, either by submission or by record, that the inter-
se seniority list was prepared or revised specifically in accordance with
the N.R. Parmar judgment. Thus, it is erroneous for the Opposite
Parties to contend that their seniority, having been settled on the basis
of N.R. Parmar, must now be protected under the prospective
application clause of K. Meghachandra Singh. On the contrary, since the
seniority determination was itself questionable and not grounded in
any crystallised legal position under N.R. Parmar, the correct legal
course is to apply the authoritative ratio of K. Meghachandra Singh.
Page 30 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42
V. CONCLUSION:
33. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view
that the Opposite Parties have failed to justify the seniority based in the
impugned gradation list dated 02.11.2022. It is abundantly clear that the
seniority list in question was not settled in explicit reliance upon N.R.
Parmar, nor has it been demonstrated that any administrative action
was taken to re-determine inter se seniority in terms of that judgment.
Moreover, the Common Cadre Rules, 2019 having come into force prior
to the decision in K. Meghachandra Singh do not explicitly provide for
seniority to be reckoned from the date of vacancy or advertisement.
34. In accordance with the binding principles laid down in K.
Meghachandra Singh and the long-standing jurisprudence reaffirmed
therein, it is held that seniority must be determined from the date on
which an officer is actually borne in the cadre, unless the service rules
expressly provide otherwise. In the absence of such a specific
stipulation in the 2019 Rules, the attempt to claim seniority from a date
prior to the actual appointment is impermissible in law.
35. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:
a. The seniority list dated 02.11.2022 impugned herein, to the extent it
is inconsistent with the law declared in K. Meghachandra Singh,
shall be revisited and revised by the competent authority.
b. The competent authority shall re-determine the inter se seniority of
the petitioners and the private respondents strictly in accordance
with the principles laid down in K. Meghachandra Singh, i.e., by
reckoning seniority from the date of appointment into the cadre.
Page 31 of 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2025 20:06:42c. Such re-determination shall be undertaken and completed within a
period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment/order.
36. This petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.32067 of 2022 is, accordingly, allowed and
disposed of with the above directions.
37. Consequently, all the above-mentioned connected Writ Petitions are
disposed of in view of the judgment/ order passed in W.P.(C) No.32067
of 2022.
38. Interim order, if any, passed earlier in any of the above-mentioned Writ
Petitions stands vacated.
39. No order as to costs.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 28th March, 2025/
Page 32 of 32
[ad_2]
Source link