The Orissa High Court has clarified that, under the “merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority” rule, reserved category employees cannot be excluded from promotion to unreserved posts solely on account of their category. Such exclusion violates both Rule-11 of the Orissa District Revenue Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983, and constitutional principles under Articles 14 and 16. The decision follows and applies Supreme Court judgments (including Indra Sawhney, R.K. Sabharwal, Virpal Singh Chauhan) and overrules contrary departmental clarifications and per incuriam decisions. The judgment has binding value for subordinate courts in Odisha.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPC(OA)/363/2019 of SANJAY KUMAR PEREI Vs STATE OF ODISHA |
| CNR | ODHC010809802019 |
| Date of Registration | 01-02-2022 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Justice Sashikanta Mishra |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Odisha |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules clarification letter dated 11.01.2019 and holds certain earlier judgments per incuriam |
| Type of Law | Service Law (Promotion, Reservation in State Services) |
| Questions of Law | Whether senior reserved category employees can be denied consideration for promotion to unreserved posts solely on account of their category, ignoring seniority and merit? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the practice of barring reserved category employees from competing for promotion to unreserved posts based only on their category is contrary to both the statutory service rules (ODRS Rules, 1983) and constitutional equality guarantees. The rules and Supreme Court precedents require that unreserved posts must be open to all on merit, and reserved category candidates, if found eligible and meritorious, should be considered in the open category. The “post-based reservation” principle does not create a closed category for unreserved vacancies; rather, these posts are open to all, and only reserved slots are earmarked exclusively. Governmental clarifications and contrary earlier High Court decisions, not considering the Supreme Court’s binding ratio, are per incuriam. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s clear pronouncements that “unreserved” posts are open to all candidates regardless of social category; reserved candidates selected on merit in open competition cannot be counted against reserved quotas; and competitive consideration in promotion must include all eligible candidates following “merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority.” The ODRS Rules or government clarification cannot override these constitutional and statutory requirements. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners from SC/ST, senior to private opposite party promotees (general category), were denied consideration for promotion as Revenue Inspectors on ground that only UR category vacancies were available. Government’s clarification, based on post-based reservation, led to this exclusion. Petitioners had all requisite qualifications and seniority. The challenge was to the denial of consideration—and consequent promotions of juniors—on the sole ground of category status. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Odisha |
| Persuasive For | Other State High Courts and Supreme Court |
| Overrules | Clarification letter dated 11.01.2019; prior conflicting High Court decisions (per incuriam) |
| Distinguishes | W.P.(C) No. 15448 of 2020 and W.A. No. 480 of 2020 (found per incuriam and thus not followed) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Orissa High Court has held that “unreserved” posts in promotion are not a closed category limited to general category candidates; they are open to all, including reserved category candidates, according to merit.
- Reservation policy does not bar considering reserved category employees for unreserved posts in promotion if they meet merit and seniority criteria.
- Departmental or governmental clarifications that restrict UR category posts to general category alone are ultra vires the ODRS Rules and Supreme Court authority.
- Earlier High Court judgments contrary to Supreme Court precedent were deemed per incuriam.
- This judgment provides clear authority for challenging exclusion of SC/ST candidates from UR promotional posts based solely on category status.
- Lawyers representing employees in service matters should closely review DPC processes for denial of consideration based on such exclusion.
- No recovery of salary or financial benefits will be made from those reverted due to quashing of improper promotions ordered in the interim.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court began by examining the ODRS Rules, 1983, focusing on Rule-11 (“merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority”) for promotion.
- It clarified, relying on B.V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu and other Supreme Court cases, that promotion must balance merit, suitability, and seniority.
- The main legal error identified was the DPC’s (and Collector’s) practice of excluding SC/ST candidates from consideration for promotion to UR posts, based solely on their social category and government clarification dated 11.01.2019.
- The Court found that both the ODRS Rules and the Supreme Court’s binding judgments (especially in Indra Sawhney, R.K. Sabharwal, Virpal Singh Chauhan, and M. Nagaraj) establish that “unreserved” posts are open to all candidates, irrespective of category, and that reserved category employees promoted on merit must be considered as open candidates, not counted against the reserved quota.
- The clarification by the Government was found to lack statutory basis and to improperly reinterpret both service rules and Supreme Court authority, thus invalid.
- Prior High Court judgments that failed to consider the binding precedent were deemed per incuriam and not applicable.
- The Court concluded that exclusion of the petitioners from the promotion zone violated both equality principles under Article 14–and the “merit-cum-suitability” rule under the ODRS Rules.
- The promotions of less-senior juniors were set aside, direction was given to convene a review DPC, and proper consideration must be given to all eligible candidates, regardless of social category, for unreserved slots.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- Seniority and merit were ignored despite being senior and eligible.
- No law bars reserved category candidates from being considered for unreserved vacancies on the basis of merit.
- Supreme Court judgments (M. Nagaraj, Indra Sawhney, Virpal Singh Chauhan) allow all candidates to compete for unreserved posts.
- Rule-11 of ODRS Rules supports giving promotion based on merit and seniority, not solely on category.
State (Opp. Parties 1 & 2)
- Petitioners were recruited in a special drive and availed benefits, hence cannot be treated as unreserved at the promotional stage.
- Excess representation of SC/ST in promotional posts exists; considering petitioners would breach the reservation ceiling.
- Petitioners were not appointed on pure merit in the feeder cadre.
- Relied on government clarification and asserted compliance with departmental instructions.
- Cited pending appeal against Lalit Kumar Nayak to suggest uncertainty in law.
Private Opposite Parties (O.P. 3-8)
- Adopted State’s arguments.
- Asserted that, per M. Nagaraj, slots earmarked for specific categories cannot be diverted.
- Claimed petitioners’ inclusion would exceed reservation quota.
- Cited prior High Court decision holding reserved category employees cannot be promoted to UR posts if their quota is exhausted.
Factual Background
The petitioners, belonging to SC and ST categories, were serving as Assistant Revenue Inspectors and Amins in Keonjhar District and were senior to the respondent promotees. A government clarification, citing post-based reservation policy, directed that reserved category employees could not be considered for promotion to unreserved (UR) posts if their prescribed slots were filled. As a result, private respondents (general category, juniors in service) were promoted to the posts of Revenue Inspector over the senior petitioners. The petitioners challenged this denial of consideration, the departmental clarification, and the subsequent promotions, seeking rectification of seniority-based promotional rights under the applicable service rules.
Statutory Analysis
- The ODRS Rules, 1983, especially Rule-11, were analyzed. Rule-11 mandates that promotion to the cadre of Revenue Inspector is to be made “on the basis of merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority.”
- Rule-4(2) sets out method of recruitment, reserving 50% of promotions to be filled by promotion, as per Rule-11.
- The Court emphasized that there is no statutory bar or embargo in these rules preventing reserved category employees from being considered for promotion to unreserved posts if eligible.
- The government clarification (dated 11.01.2019) was held to lack statutory authority and to be contrary to the rules and binding judicial precedent.
- The Supreme Court’s explanations of Articles 14 and 16(4) were cited as constitutional guarantees preventing such exclusion.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations are recorded in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment closely follows and applies binding Supreme Court authority (Indra Sawhney, R.K. Sabharwal, M. Nagaraj, Virpal Singh Chauhan, B.V. Sivaiah, Sajib Roy).
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – The judgment overrules prior Orissa High Court decisions (rendered per incuriam) and a contrary government clarification.