Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Odisha High Court Upholds Principle of Seniority in Promotions, Quashes Impugned Communication: Seniority Takes Precedence Over Eligibility

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent decision, the Odisha High Court, led by Justice Sashikanta Mishra, has quashed an impugned communication regarding the promotion of Deputy Conservators of Forests in the Forest Department, Government of Odisha. The Court’s judgment, delivered on November 10, emphasized the supremacy of seniority over eligibility criteria in promotional exercises.

The petitioners, senior members of the Forest Department, had challenged the proposed promotion of their juniors based on the eligibility criterion under Rule 5 of the Odisha Forest Service Group-A (Senior) (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2015, which mandates five years of continuous service in the grade of OFS Group-A (Junior Branch). The petitioners argued that this ignored their inherent seniority, which should be the paramount consideration.

Justice Mishra, in his ruling, asserted, “As between the question of seniority and the eligibility criteria, this Court is of the view that the former shall take precedence over the latter.” He further noted, “This would be entirely contrary to the principle of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.”

The Court’s decision has been hailed as a significant affirmation of the principles of fairness and equality in government service promotions. By quashing the impugned communication, the Court has directed the authorities to take necessary steps to fill up the posts in the promotional cadre in accordance with the observations made in the judgment.

Legal experts view this judgment as a critical precedent in ensuring that promotions in public services respect the seniority of employees, thereby maintaining the delicate balance between constitutional equality and affirmative action.

The case had seen robust representation from both sides, with senior advocates and legal counsels arguing fervently on the nuances of eligibility versus seniority and the implications of reservation in promotions. This judgment is expected to have wide-reaching implications in the administrative processes of government departments, particularly in regards to promotion policies.

Date of Decision: 10.11.2023.

Prakash Chandra Das and others VS State of Odisha and others         

Latest Legal News