STATE OF ODISHA vs KEDARNATH PRADHANI

Court
Odisha High Court




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Oct-2026 20:19:31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

WRIT APPEAL No.2035 of 2025

CNR No. ODHC010918452025


(From the order dated 16.09.2025 of the learned Single Judge passed in
W.P.(C) No.25719 of 2022)

State of Odisha …. Appellant
-versus-
Sri Kedarnath Pradhani and others …. Respondents

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Appellant : Mr. D. Mohanty, A.G.A.

For Respondents : Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. S. Jena, Advocate
For Respondent No.1

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

JUDGMENT
th
13 October 2026
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. D. Mohanty, learned Additional Government
Advocate for State-Appellant, Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned Senior
Advocate along with Mr. S. Jena, learned counsel for Respondent
No.1.

2. Assailing the order dated 16.09.2025 of learned Single Judge
passed in W.P.(C) No.25719 of 2022, the State has preferred present
WA No.2035 of 2025 Page 1 of 9

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Oct-2026 20:19:31
appeal. It is submitted by Mr. D. Mohanty, learned A.G.A. that the
learned Single Judge has committed error by directing for grant of
retrospective promotion to the Writ Petitioner (present Respondent
No.1), w.e.f. 03.09.2012.

3. The facts of the case in short are that, present Respondent No.1
joined as Marketing Intelligence Inspector along with private
Respondents 5 & 6 (proforma Respondents) on 23.06.2011 pursuant to
due selection process. When Respondent No.1 along with proforma
Respondents 5 & 6 and others were continuing as Marketing
Intelligence Inspectors, private Respondents 5 & 6 were taken as
elevated to the post of Inspector of Supplies on 03.09.2012 in order to
fill up the vacant posts of Inspector of Supplies. It needs to be stated
here that the advertisement made in the year 2009 was to fill up three
categories of posts, i.e. Marketing Intelligence Inspectors (Schematic),
Inspector of Supplies (Schematic) and Regular Inspector of Supplies.
As some posts were left vacant in the category of Inspector of Supplies
(Schematic), either due to resignation of some selected candidates or
for other reasons, so in order to fill up those vacant posts of Inspector
of Supplies (Schematic), the Selection Committee in their proceeding
dated 05.12.2011 choose four Marketing Intelligence Inspectors
WA No.2035 of 2025 Page 2 of 9

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Oct-2026 20:19:31
(Schematic) and appointed them as Inspector of Supplies (Schematic)
pursuant to the same advertisement. Those four Marketing Intelligence
Inspectors include present Respondents 5 & 6. Therefore, Respondent
No.1 approached in W.P.(C) (OA) No.173 of 2018 and this Court vide
order dated 07.07.2022 directed the authority to consider the prayer of
Respondent No.1 for his elevation/promotion to the post of Inspector
of Supplies as has been done in the case of private Respondents 5 & 6.
Subsequent thereto, the Government of Odisha vide order dated
12.08.2022 rejected the prayer of Respondent No.1 and then he
approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.25719 of 2022. The learned
Single Judge vide order dated 16.09.2025, impugned before us in the
present appeal, directed to grant promotion to Respondent No.1 to the
rank of Inspector of Supplies w.e.f. 03.09.2012, i.e. the date when
private Respondents 5 & 6 got benefits of said posts being
promoted/elevated as such. The learned Single Judge has further
clarified that such retrospective promotion given to Respondent No.1
shall be on notionally basis. It needs to be stated here that in the
meantime, Respondent No.1 has already promoted to the post of
Inspector of Supplies, w.e.f. 25.09.2020.

WA No.2035 of 2025 Page 3 of 9

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Oct-2026 20:19:31
4. Mr. Mohanty, learned A.G.A. while challenging the impugned
order of learned Single Judge submits that, grant of retrospective
promotion to the employee against the Rule is impermissible. In
support of his submission, he relies on the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Nirmal Chandra Sinha vs. Union of
India and others, (2008) 14 SCC 29 .
It is further submitted on behalf of State-Appellant that
Respondents 5 & 6 are belonging to ST category and therefore they
along with two other candidates belonging to SEBC category, who
were working as MII by then, were chosen for elevation to the post of
Inspector of Supplies by the Selection Committee, and since present
Respondent No.1 is coming under UR category, he cannot claim parity
with those elevated as Inspector of Supplies (Schematic).

5. Mr. Tripathy, learned Senior Advocate submits on behalf of
Respondent No.1 that in the selection list he was at Serial No.2 and
Respondents 5 & 6 were at Serial Nos.34 & 35 for the post of
Marketing Intelligence Inspectors (MII). The Selection Committee
while recommending for appointment of Respondents 5 & 6 to the post
of Inspector of Supplies (Schematic) on elevation, the seniority of
Respondent No.1 above Respondents 5 & 6 was ignored. According to
WA No.2035 of 2025 Page 4 of 9

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Oct-2026 20:19:31
him, ignoring the seniority of Respondent No.1 in the merit list, the
persons placed below in the merit list cannot be taken to a higher post.

6. On the backdrop of such rival submissions made by the
respective parties, it is found necessary to look into the Rules
governing the service conditions of MII and Inspector of Supplies. The
concerned Rule, i.e. Odisha Civil Supplies (Method of Recruitment ad
Condition of Services of Inspector of Supplies) Rules, 2016 came into
force w.e.f. 11.08.2016. Prior to that, the Resolution dated 21.07.2009
was operating the field for selection and appointment to the post of
Inspector of Supplies and Marketing Intelligence Inspectors to regulate
the method of recruitment and their conditions of service. Under the
provisions of said Resolution, no such concept was there for promotion
to the post of Inspector of Supplies. It is true that the selection made to
such posts of MII (Schematic), Inspector of Supplies (Schematic) and
Regular Inspector of Supplies were made in accordance with said
Resolution dated 21.07.2009. As per the proceeding of the Selection
Committee dated 05.12.2011 (Annexure-D), no reason has been
mentioned for giving appointment to those four Marketing Intelligence
Inspectors (Schematic) to the post of Inspector of Supplies
(Schematic). It is relevant to re-produce concerned paragraphs of the
WA No.2035 of 2025 Page 5 of 9

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Oct-2026 20:19:31
proceedings of the Selection Committee dated 05.12.2011. The same
reads as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx

Keeping in view the merit of the candidates already appointed as
Inspector of Supplies & Market Intelligence Inspector along with the
scale of pay of the post, 4 Market Intelligence Inspectors joined (under
Rs.2/- per Kg rice scheme) are to be elevated to the post of Inspector
of Supplies under Rs.2/- per Kg rice scheme. List of such candidates is
at Flag-‘C’. After elevation, remaining 6 vacancies of Inspector of
Supplies & 29 vacancies of Market Intelligence Inspector under Rs.2/-
per Kg rice scheme (35 vacancies in total) are to be filled up now as
per the panel prepared for the purpose (Annexure-‘III’).

The Selection Committee perused the proceedings of the Verification
Committee and proceedings of the meeting of the Apex Committee
held on 12.10.2011. After going through the proceedings of the
Verification Committee/Apex Committee and other reports/
documents, the Selection Committee recommended for :-

a. Acceptance of the recommendation of the Apex Committee.

b. Elevation of the following 4 Market Intelligence Inspector
appointed under Rs.2/- Kg. rice scheme to the post of Inspector of
Supplies under Rs.2/- Kg. rice scheme.

SNO Name Category to which
belongs
Category against
which to be elevated
1 GULUBAS MANIC SEBC SEBC
2 SANTADEEPA PRADHAN SEBCF SEBC
3 JAGANNATHA BHOI ST ST
4 ABHI MACHHA ST ST

xxx xxx xxx”

7. Therefore, as seen from the proceeding of the Selection
Committee, no reason has been assigned for so called elevation of
those four Marketing Intelligence Inspectors to be appointed to the post
of Inspector of Supplies subsequently. It remains undisputed that this
Marketing Intelligence Inspectors, who are elevated to the post of
WA No.2035 of 2025 Page 6 of 9

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Oct-2026 20:19:31
Inspector of Supplies (Schematic), have been subsequently regularized
as Inspector of Supplies w.e.f. 03.09.2012. It also remains undisputed
that those four Marketing Intelligence Inspectors chosen for being
appointed as Inspector of Supplies were placed below Respondent
No.1 in the merit list while appointed as Marketing Intelligence
Inspectors.

8. Thus, what is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned A.G.A. for
State-Appellant that there was no rule prescribed to give retrospective
promotion is not found correct. It is because at the time of appointment
of Marketing Intelligence Inspectors (Schematic) nor Inspector of
Supplies (Schematic) nor Regular Inspector of Supplies, pursuant to
the advertisement dated 12.11.2009, no rule/provision was there to give
promotion to the post of Inspector of Supplies. The Resolution dated
21.07.2009 governing the recruitment and service conditions of
Inspector of Supplies and Marketing Intelligence Inspectors also does
not prescribe anything for promotion/elevation to the post of Inspector
of Supplies. But the Selection Committee when adhering to such
procedure for recruitment to the post of Inspector of Supplies went
beyond prevalent provisions to give elevation to four Marketing
Intelligence Inspectors to be promoted as Inspector of Supplies. The
WA No.2035 of 2025 Page 7 of 9

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Oct-2026 20:19:31
decision in the case of Nirmal Chandra Sinha (supra) as relied on by
Mr. Mohanty, learned A.G.A., speaks that the promotion should take
effect from the date of being granted and not from the date of
occurrence of vacancy or creation of the post. In the said case, the Writ
Petitioner was an employee under the Railways and his prayer for
retrospective promotion in violation of the Rule was allowed by the
High Court.

9. In the present facts of the case when it is admitted that there was
no Rule governing the field prescribing the provisions or guidelines for
promotion to the post of Inspector of Supplies prior to 11.08.2016, the
decision of the Selection Committee choosing four Marketing
Intelligence Inspectors at random irrespective of their seniority in the
merit list is certainly illegal and unsustainable. However, the learned
Single Judge without disturbing their promotion/elevation has granted
similar benefits in favour of Respondent No.1 on the ground that those
Marketing Intelligence Inspectors were placed below to Respondent
No.1 in the merit list. As, the authorities have committed illegality in
ignoring the case of the Respondent No.1 while giving
elevation/promotion to other Marketing Intelligence Inspectors, on that
WA No.2035 of 2025 Page 8 of 9

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Oct-2026 20:19:31
score, the learned Single Judge has directed to grant all the benefits in
favour of Respondent No.1 notionally from the date of other Marketing
Intelligence Inspectors were granted such benefits, particularly the
private Respondents 5 & 6. Therefore, no illegality is seen in the
direction of the learned Single Judge.

10. Resultantly, without finding any infirmity in the order of the
learned Single Judge, the writ appeal is dismissed.

(B.P. Routray)
Judge



(Savitri Ratho)
Judge










B.K. Barik/A.R.-cum-Senior Secretary

WA No.2035 of 2025 Page 9 of 9