Orissa HC Orders Havildar Promotions For 2 Home Guard-Quota Constables, Says 2021 Seniority Rules Did Not Apply to Their Case

In brief

The question

Whether the seniority provisions in the 2021 Order, including Rule 15 and amended Rule 16-A, applied to the petitioners, who were appointed against vacancies reserved for Home Guards.

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition and directed Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 to promote the petitioners to Havildar from the date on which similarly situated Constables received promotion, with consequential service and financial benefits on a notional basis.

It also directed

The authorities were directed to complete the exercise within three months of receiving the order.

01Facts

The petitioners, who had served as Home Guards, were appointed as Constables against vacancies reserved for Home Guards and joined on 18 August 2012.

p. 2, 9 · ¶ 4, 7

Their names appeared in successive lists of Constables eligible for promotion to Havildar and to undergo Drill Instructor’s Course (DIC) training.

pp. 3–7 · ¶ 4.2–5.6

However, by an order dated 14 June 2024, the authorities excluded them from the training list, reasoning that their placement did not accord with the seniority provisions in the Odisha Police Service (Method of Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Constables) Order, 2021, as amended.

pp. 3–7 · ¶ 4.2–5.6

Under an interim order dated 21 June 2024, they undertook and qualified the training; meanwhile, later-appointed Constables had received promotion.

pp. 4, 9–11 · ¶ 4.5, 6.1, 7.5

02Issues

i.Whether the seniority provisions in the 2021 Order, including Rule 15 and amended Rule 16-A, applied to the petitioners, who were appointed against vacancies reserved for Home Guards.

pp. 7–10 · ¶ 6.1, 7.3

ii.Whether the authorities could exclude the petitioners from the DIC training list without first giving them an opportunity to be heard.

p. 10 · ¶ 7.3–7.4

iii.Whether the petitioners were entitled to promotion to Havildar after qualifying the DIC training.

pp. 9–11 · ¶ 6.1, 7.5

03Law Applied

The Court considered Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Rule 15 of the Odisha Police Service (Method of Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Constables) Order, 2021, which provides for determining the inter se seniority of directly recruited Constables by reference to aggregate marks in the recruitment test and final training examination.

p. 7 · ¶ 5.5

It also considered Rule 16-A, which provides that promotion of Constables to Havildar is governed by Appendix C, and the 2023 amendment to that Order.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 5.5–5.6

The Court treated those provisions as inapplicable to the petitioners’ Home Guard-reserved appointments and applied the principle of natural justice that an affected person should be given an opportunity to be heard before an adverse decision is made.

p. 10 · ¶ 7.3–7.4

The judgment cites no judicial precedents.

04Reasoning

The petitioners’ appointments were made against vacancies reserved for Home Guards, and the Court therefore held that the direct-recruit seniority provisions in Rule 15 and Rule 16-A could not be used to redetermine their seniority after the revised list had been issued.

pp. 9–10 · ¶ 7.1–7.3

Further, although complaints by other Constables prompted the petitioners’ exclusion, the authorities had not given the petitioners an opportunity to respond before removing them from the list.

p. 10 · ¶ 7.3–7.4

The exclusion was therefore procedurally unfair.

p. 10 · ¶ 7.3–7.4

Because the petitioners had completed the DIC training under the interim order and later-appointed Constables had already been promoted, the Court directed that they receive promotion from the date similarly situated Constables were promoted.

p. 11 · ¶ 7.5