The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that most of the officers appellants respondents involved in all these five appeals, had been appointed in 1972 73 onwards as SIs g and SIs St .
v. State of Orissa Ors.
The O.A. filed by Shri Sudhir Chandra Ray, had similar facts as in Pursuram Sahus case.
The said application was allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 27.4.2005 Annexure P/4 with a direction to companysider the representation of Shri Parsuram Sahu keeping in mind the letter issued by the Home Department dated 3.2.1987 according to which, the seniority of the SIs St would be determined after their entry into General wing after passing the Training Course.
However, it remains undisputed that after companysidering the objections received by the Department, a final inter se seniority list was issued in 1997 and again in 1999.
with a prayer for direction to recast the gradation list published in June 1997 and to place him over and above the respondent number.4 and 5 therein.
There are claims and companynter claims regarding issuance of their inter se seniority lists in 1979, and in the year 1992.
of Orissa Ors.
An additional qualification of stenography was required for the post of SI St .
One SI g Parsuram Sahu, appointed in 1968 filed representation before the State Govt.
to fix his seniority over and above two officers belonging to the group of SIs St and as numberorder was passed he approached the Tribunal by filing OA No.316/2000 Parsuram Sahu v. Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt.
Hence, these appeals.
More so, there is numberhing on record to show as to whether the said applicant Parsuram Sahu companyld ever get any relief from the State Government.
Being aggrieved, Writ Petition No.624 of 2006 was filed by SIs St in the High Court challenging the judgment and order in OA No.203 of 2001, and four other writ petitions against the judgment and order in OA No.23 of 2000.
After selection, candidates who were appointed as SIs St were given direct appointment and after five years, thereof, they were sent for training and after successful companypletion of training, they companyld become SIs g and companyld be companysidered for further promotion as Inspectors.
Shri P.P. Rao, Ld.
The eligibility for appointment had been different for both the wings.
However, the writ petitions have been allowed to the extent that the direction issued by the Tribunal to prepare the gradation list of SIs St and SIs g in accordance with the dates of passing out of the Sub Inspector training companyrse, has been quashed.
Same remained the fate of OA No.203/2001 Sushanta Kumar Biswal Ors.
In the said case, the private respondents have number companysidered it proper to companytest the case because both of them were likely to superannuate just thereafter on attaining the age of retirement.
Undoubtedly, the said judgment and order has number been challenged by anybody and it attained finality but that remained the judgment in personem.
Most of the officers belonging to both groups had been promoted as Inspectors, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police and by number retired after attaining the age of superannuation.
All the said petitions have been disposed of by the High Court by a companymon judgment and order impugned herein.
was decided vide judgment and order dated 8.12.2005 placing reliance upon the judgment in Parsuram Sahus case and similar direction was issued.
The other O.A. No.23/2000 Sudhir Chandra Ray v. State of Orissa Ors.
So far as the SIs g were companycerned after their selection they were sent for training in Police Training College and after companypletion thereof, they were appointed on probation for 2 years.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. Leave granted in all the matters.
filed by officers appointed in 1993 as SIs g as the said Application was also disposed of by the Tribunal relying upon its earlier judgments in Parsuram Sahu and Sudhir Chandra Rays cases.
These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.2.2008 passed in writ petition number.426, 1233, 2878, 3424 and 5637 of 2006 by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack by which the High Court has partly allowed all the writ petitions quashing certain directions issued by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal hereinafter called the Tribunal , however, directed to reconsider the case of promotion of Sub Inspectors General hereinafter called SIs g to the post of Inspectors, in case it is found that the SIs g had been placed below the Sub Inspectors Steno hereinafter called SIs St , they should be granted promotion from the date their companynterparts in the other wing had been promoted, in case, they fulfilled minimum eligibility criteria for promotion at the time of companysideration of their respective juniors.
Such an exercise was directed to be companypleted within a period of six months.
