KRUPASINDHU SWAIN vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 14708 of 2024
CNR No. ODHC010441532024
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
………………
Krupasindhu Swain & Anr. …. Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. M. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
along with
Ms. S. Mohanty, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.K. Pradhan, Addl. Govt. Advocate
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 05.11.2026 & Date of Judgment:05.11.2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J .
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. M. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners along with Ms. S. Mohanty, learned counsel and Mr. C.K.
Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.
// 2 //
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following
prayer:-
“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the
records and after hearing the parties, may be pleased to pass
the following reliefs:-
a) The Opp. Parties may be directed to include the names of
the petitioners in the revised select list dated 14.06.2024
under Annexure-8; as their names were found place in the
previous select lists dated 29.12.2023, 08.02.2024 &
28.05.2024;
b) The Opp. Parties be directed to give promotion to the
petitioners to the rank of Havildar;
c) And may pass such other
Order/Orders/Direction/Directions as may be deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioners shall as in duty
bound remain ever pray.”
4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that
Petitioners while continuing as Home Guard, they were appointed as
against the post of Constable, taking into account the vacancy meant for
such Home Guards to the extent of 10% in the year 2012. Petitioners
accordingly joined as Constable on 18.08.2012 so available in the
service book enclosed under Annexure-1 series.
4.1. It is contended that Petitioners after being so appointed as against
the post of Constable, they acquired the required training successfully
and became eligible for their promotion to the rank of Havildar.
4.2. Taking into account the date of appointment of the Petitioners as
against the post of Constable on 18.08.2012 and the training so acquired,
Petitioners were held eligible to get the benefit of promotion to the rank
Page 2 of 11
// 3 //
of Havildar and a select list was published by the Opp. Party No. 4 on
25.12.2023 under Annexure-B/4. In the said final select list published
under Annexure-B/4, names of the present Petitioners find place at Sl.
Nos. 43 & 44 with their date of initial appointment as against the post of
Constable as on 18.08.2012.
4.3. It is contended that while the matter stood thus, basing on the order
passed by this Court on 11.01.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 41360 of 2022, when
4 (four) of the Constables were also declared eligible to get the benefit of
promotion, a fresh select list was published on 08.02.2024 under
Annexure-4. In the said select list, names of the present Petitioners were
found place at Sl. Nos. 43 & 44.
4.4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that
basing on such redrawn select list, Petitioners were held eligible to
undergo the required Drill Instructor’s Training (DIC) vide the
communication issued on 28.05.2024 under Annexure-5. In the said list,
Petitioners’ names were found place at Sl. Nos. 20 and 21. However,
prior to undergoing such training, even though Petitioners were declared
physically fit to undergo the same under Annexure-7 series, the
impugned order was issued on 14.06.2024 under Annexure-8, wherein
Petitioners were held ineligible to undergo DIC course of training for
their promotion to the post of Havildar. Accordingly, by challenging the
exclusion of the names of the present Petitioners in the list published on
14.06.2024 under Annexure-8, wherein the Petitioners were deprived to
undergo the DIC course of training, the present writ petition was filed.
Page 3 of 11
// 4 //
4.5. It is contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on
21.06.2024, Petitioners were allowed to undergo the training and
Petitioners have also qualified the same. It is contended that since
Petitioners were deprived to undergo the training because of the
impugned order issued under Annexure-8, even though they acquired the
said training pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, but they
are yet to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Havildar, even
though persons similarly situated and junior to them have got the said
benefit in the meantime. It is accordingly contended that since
Petitioners were wrongly excluded from undergoing the training because
of the impugned order dtd.14.06.2024 under Annexure-8, and pursuant
to the interim order passed by this Court on 21.06.2024, they have
already undergone the training, necessary direction be issued to the Opp.
Party Nos. 3 and 4 to promote the Petitioners to the rank of Havildar
from the date persons similarly situated were so promoted with
consequential service and financial benefits with quashing of Annexure-
8.
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate while supporting the impugned order
dtd.14.06.2024, made his submission basing on the stand taken in the
counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 4 and the affidavit filed on
25.06.2024 so available at Flag-10 of the brief.
5.1. It is contended that even though it is not disputed that in the redrawn
select list of eligible Constables so issued on 08.02.2024 under
Annexure-4, Petitioners were held eligible to undergo the DIC training,
but since complaints were made with regard to inclusion of the names of
the Petitioners in the said list by 2 (two) of the Constables, a fresh
Page 4 of 11
// 5 //
decision was taken with regard to the redrawn select list published on
08.02.2024 under Annexure-4. On such consideration, since it was found
that Petitioners have been illegally included in the select list issued under
Annexure-4, while issuing the impugned order dtd.14.06.2024 under
Annexure-8, names of the present Petitioners were not included,
permitting them to undergo the DIC course of training.
5.2. In support of such submission, reliance was placed to Para 8 of the
affidavit filed on 25.06.2024 so available at Flag 10 of the brief. Para 8
of the affidavit reads as follows:-
“8. That, reason behind exclusion of name of the petitioners
from the final redrawn list dtd. 14.6.2024 vide Annexure-8 of
eligible constables to undergo DIC course of training is that,
as per Rule-15 of Order, 2021 vide Annexure-A/4 which is a
Rule governing the promotion of Constables to the rank of
Havildar, the interse seniority of constables is required to be
drawn on the basis of aggregate mark obtained by each
candidates in the recruitment test and as per the redrawn
merit list of 2021 which came out as per the judgment passed
in the review petition bearing RVWPET Nos. 48, 49, 50, 51 of
2018, the names of the present petitioners namely
Krupasindhu Swain is at Serial No.45 and the aggregate
mark secured by him is 26 and the name of the other
petitioner namely Basanta Kumar Das is at Serial No.46 and
the aggregate mark secured by him as 24.75 whereas the
persons who filed representation vide Annexure-C/4 Series
namely Akhaya Kumar Mohanty is at Serial No.10 and the
mark secured by him 47.75 and the another person namely
Susil Kumar Bar who filed their representation vide
Annexure-C/4 Series is at Serial No.11 and he has secured
Page 5 of 11
// 6 //
47.75 marks. From this it is clear that going by Rule-15 of
Order, 2021, the said Akhaya Kumar Mohanty and Susil
Kumar Bara having secured more marks than petitioners,
they have been placed at Serial Nos. 10 and 11 of revised
redrawn select list drawn on 23.6.2021 pursuant to the
judgment delivered by this Hon'ble Court in review petition
bearing RVWPET Nos. 48, 49, 50, 51 of 2018. In such view of
the matter, since and the considering Clause-4 of Appendix-C
appended to the amended Order, 2023, the name of the
petitioners have been excluded from the eligible list of
constables to undergo DIC Course of training inasmuch as,
in the said Clause-4 of Appendix-C which form part of the
amended Notification dtd.4.8.2023, has also the reference to
the order 15 of Recruitment Rule i.e, Order, 2021 vide
Annexure-A/4.
True copy of Revised redrawn seniority list filed as
Annexure-E/4.”
5.3. It is accordingly contended that since challenge was made by 2
(two) of the candidates with regard to inclusion of the names of the
present Petitioners in the redrawn select list issued under Annexure-4,
while considering such grievance made by the 2 (two) of the Constables,
it was found that Petitioners are wrongly included in the redrawn select
list issued under Annexure-4, their names were not indicated while
issuing order dtd.14.06.2024 under Annexure-8.
5.4. It is also contended that such a step was taken, taking into account
the complaint made by 2 (two) of the Constables that since they have
secured more marks and in terms of the provisions contained under the
Odisha Police Service (Method of Recruitment & Conditions of Service
Page 6 of 11
// 7 //
of Constables) Order, 2021 so amended vide notification dtd.04.08.2023
under Annexure-B/4, names of the Petitioners have been wrongly
included, Petitioners were not permitted to undergo the training with
passing of the impugned order dtd.14.06.2024 under Annexure-8.
5.5. Reliance was placed to Rule 15 of the 2021 Order and Rule 16-A of
the Amended Order. Rule 15 and Rule 16-A of the Order reads as
follows:-
“15. Inter Se Seniority: (1) The inter se seniority of the
candidates appointed as Constables by way of direct
recruitment during a particular recruitment year shall be
determined in accordance with the aggregate marks obtained
by each candidate in the recruitment test conducted by the
Board and in the final examination conducted by the Training
Institute in the ratio of 1:2.
xxx xxx xxx
16-A. Promotion of Constables to the rank of Havildar and
promotion of Havildars to the rank of Havildar Major in
Districts shall be governed as per the provisions outlined
under APPENDIX-C appended to these Order.”
5.6. It is accordingly contended that since in terms of the provisions
contained under Rule 15 r.w. the amended Rule 16-A of the 2021 Order,
Petitioners were found ineligible for their inclusion in the list to undergo
the DIC course of training, their names were excluded while issuing the
impugned order dtd.14.06.2024 under Annexure-8. It is accordingly
contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the action
Page 7 of 11
// 8 //
of the authorities in not allowing the Petitioners to undergo the DIC
course of training.
6. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, learned
Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners made further submissions
contending inter alia that since Petitioners were appointed as against the
post of Constable against the vacancies meant for Home Guards to the
extent of 10%, provisions contained under the 2021 Order are not
applicable to their cases. In fact, seniority of the Petitioners is required to
be considered in terms of the provisions contained in the Resolution
issued on 25.05.2021 under Annexure-G/4. Reliance was placed to Para
10 and the illustration to the said Para of the Resolution, which reads as
follows:-
“10. In all Districts, the principle of Horizontal reservation will
be applicable for selection of Homeguard candidates as decided
by the Hon'ble OAT in different OAS. against 10% vacancy of
the advertised vacancies. 10% of total advertised vacancy shall
be calculated for Homeguards. Out of Common Merit list of
Homeguards irrespective of Men or women, the top marks
secured candidates upto the 10% posts so calculated shall be
selected. Thereafter, they shall be placed in their respective
category i.e. Gen(HG) in UR, SEBC(HG) in SEBC, SC(HG) in
SC and ST(HG) in ST category. After placing them in their
respective category, against the balance posts in the respective
categories, non- Homeguard Candidates shall be selected.
Illustration: Suppose, in One District the total advertised
vacancy is 93. 10 of 93 is 9.3 rounded upto 09. Out of common
merit list of Homeguards, top 09 candidates are to be selected.
Page 8 of 11
// 9 //
Then they will be allotted slots in their respective categories. If
in top 9 Home Guard candidates, if there are 04 UR(HG) Men,
01 UR(HG) Women, 03 SUBC (HG) Men and 01 ST(HG)
Women are placed, they be allotted slots in their repetive
categories. Balance number of vacancies in different categories
shall be available for selection of non Home guard candidates
of that category, i.e. UR-47-05(HG)=42(Non Home Guard), SC-
15-0(HG)=15 (Non-Home Guard), SEBC-10-03(HG)= 07 (Non-
HG), ST-21-01-20(Non HG).”
6.1. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioners were appointed as
against the post of Constable against the vacancies meant for Home
Guard, they cannot be taken as direct recruitees and accordingly
provisions contained under Rule 15 and the Amended Rule 16-A are not
applicable to the case of the Petitioners. But by wrong application of
those Rules to the case of the Petitioners, they were deprived to undergo
the training vide the impugned order dtd.14.06.2024 under Annexure-8.
It is accordingly contended that since Petitioners in the meantime have
already undergone the training and they are eligible in all respect to get
the benefit of promotion to the rank of Havildar, such benefit be
extended with issuance of appropriate order from the date similarly
situated Constables, were given such benefit with all consequential
service and financial benefits as due and admissible.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, it is found that both the Petitioners
while continuing as Home Guard, they were appointed as against the
post of Constable, where they joined on 18.08.2012. The same is also
reflected in the service book so enclosed under Annexure-1 series.
Page 9 of 11
// 10 //
7.1. Taking into account such date of appointment of the Petitioners
against the post of Constable in the list published under Annexure-3 on
29.12.2023 indicating the names of the Constables who are otherwise
eligible to get the benefit of promotion, names of the present Petitioners
were reflected at Sl. Nos. 39 & 40, as against SEBC category.
7.2. Not only that in the redrawn select list issued on 08.02.2024 under
Annexure-4, names of the Petitioners were reflected at Sl. Nos. 43 & 44
and all those selectees were made eligible to undergo DIC course of
training. However, as found from the impugned order dated 14.06.2024
under Annexure-8, names of the present Petitioners were excluded and
accordingly, the present writ petition was filed challenging the same.
7.3. Considering the stand taken in the writ petition and submission
made by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the
stand taken in the counter affidavit and so also the instruction so
provided by way of affidavit on 25.06.2024, it is the view of this Court
that provisions contained under Rule 15 and the amended provisions of
Rule 16-A of the 2021 Order are not applicable to the case of the
Petitioners as Petitioners got the benefit of appointment as against the
vacancy meant for Home Guards to the extent of 10%. Accordingly, it is
the view of this Court that relying on the said provisions, seniority of the
Petitioners could not have been re-determined after issuance of the
redrawn select list under Annexure-4. Not only that, it is the view of this
Court that after publication of the redrawn select list on 08.02.2024
under Annexure-4, if any complaint was made by any other eligible
Constables, prior to taking any decision in excluding the Petitioners from
the list, Petitioners should have been given an opportunity of hearing.
Page 10 of 11
// 11 //
7.4. Since no such opportunity was ever given and the same is also found
with no document stand enclosed to the counter affidavit as well as to the
instruction, it is the view of this Court that without following the
principle of natural justice, Petitioners should not have been deprived to
undergo the DIC training with issuance of the impugned order
dtd.14.06.2024 under Annexure-8.
7.5. Since it is not disputed that pursuant to the interim order passed by
this Court on 21.06.2024, Petitioners have already undergone the DIC
course of training and Constable appointed subsequent to the
appointment of the Petitioners have already availed the benefit of
promotion, this Court directs Opp. Party Nos. 3 & 4 to extend the benefit
of promotion in favour of the Petitioners to the rank of Havildar from the
date persons similarly situated were so extended with all service and
financial benefits, but on notional basis. This Court directs Opp. Party
Nos. 3 & 4 to complete the entire exercise within a period of three (3)
months from the date of receipt of this order.
8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
Dated the 5 November, 2026/Sneha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2026 12:04:55
Page 11 of 11