In the case of Geeti Ranjan Mohapatra v. State of Odisha, The petitioner was working as a police inspector at the Bolangir district’s Puintala Police Station. Disciplinary actions were taken against the petitioner in response to a complaint made by the Additional Superintendent of Police. Despite the petitioner’s cooperation with the departmental authority, the disciplinary proceedings took longer than expected to wrap up. A DPC meeting was called while these proceedings were ongoing to discuss promoting the Inspectors to the position of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Even though the Petitioner and the rest of his cohort were eligible for this promotion, the DPC did not evaluate his application because not enough Performance Appraisal Reports (PAR) were available for review. The petitioner’s batchmates and direct juniors received promotions while the petitioner’s cause was disregarded. Following that, a review DPC was held on July 22, 2021, and the petitioner’s case was taken into consideration after receiving the necessary number of PARs. The review DPC’s judgement was then preserved in a sealed cover. As a result, the Petitioner had gone to the Court and filed a Writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of India to ask for instructions on how to open the sealed cover and give him a promotion.
Observation of the court
In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution, the petitioner asked the government of Odisha and the appropriate authorities to promote him to the rank of deputy superintendent of police (or “DSP”). The Orissa High Court ordered the authorities to open a sealed cover containing the Departmental Promotion Committee’s (or “DPC’s”) decision regarding the petitioner.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s name was initially given to DPC together with those of other qualified applicants. The Court held the reasoned opinion that the Petitioner must demonstrate that he met all requirements for the promotion. The Court further noted that the petitioner’s case was not taken into consideration at the DPC meeting on January 28, 2021, which had recommended the petitioner’s batchmates and closest juniors for promotion to the post of DSP due to an insufficient number of Performance Appraisal Reports (or “PARs”). The Court ruled that as the promotion sought by the petitioner is a legal right, the non-availability of the PARs cannot be used as a justification for dismissing the petitioner’s complaint. The court further stated that it had been previously decided that a government worker could not be refused promotion merely because the authorities had failed to transmit enough APRs or provide the DPC with enough PARs.
As a result, the Court gave the authorities a four-week deadline from the date that a certified copy of the judgement was produced before ordering them to open the sealed cover. The Court further stated that the Petitioner’s ad hoc promotion would be subject to additional terms and restrictions stated in the Office Memorandum dated 17-06-2021.