Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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         

Similar News