Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 1918 of 2022 Abhilash Bhoi ..... Petitioner Mr. S.S. Parida, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das. ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 27.01.2026 Order No. 10 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed in Court be kept in record. 3. Heard Mr. S.S. Parida, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: i. Admit the Writ Petition, ii. Issue notice to the Opp. Parties and call for the relevant records, iii. Issue appropriate writ/writs direction/directions, order/orders, to the opposite parties directing them to correct the date of initial appointment of the petitioner in the Gradation List (Annexure-6) as 06.10.2016 instead of Page 2 of 4. 12.06.20, and/or to treat 06.10.2016 the notional date of joining of the Petitioner. Qualifying service period be computed from that date and all consequential benefits be given to the Petitioner from 06.10.2016. iv. Issue appropriate writ/writs, direction /directions, order/orders, to the opposite parties directing them to give promotion to the petitioner to the post of Section Officer-OSS Cadre (Group-B) from the date on which his juniors and others are promoted to the said posts, to provide all the consequential benefits, financial benefits to the petitioner and to quash the impugned office order dated 07.08.21 (annexure- 8) and office order dated 11.08.21 (annexure-10). And/or may pass any such other order/orders, direction/directions, as this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper; And for this act of kindness the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 5. It is contended that Petitioner even though was appointed as against the post of Assistant Section Officer vide order dtd.11.05.2020 under Annexure-5, but his date of joining is required to be treated as 06.10.2016, instead of 12.06.2020, taking into account the fact that in terms of the order of appointment Petitioner joined on 12.06.2020. 5.1. It is contended that after being so appointed vide order dtd.11.05.2020 with date of joining as 12.06.2020, Petitioner though made a detailed representation under Annexure-7, claiming therein to treat his date of joining as 06.10.2016 in place of 12.06.2020, but such claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned office order dtd.11.08.2021 under Annexure-10. It is also contended that Page 3 of 4. claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of promotion by taking his date of joining as 12.06.2020 was also rejected vide order dtd.07.08.2021 under Annexure-8, on the ground that Petitioner does not have the required residency period for such promotion to the post of Section Officer. 5.2. It is contended that since without proper appreciation of the Petitioner’s claim so made under Annexure-7, claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide order dtd.11.08.2021 under Annexure-10 and his claim for promotion was also rejected on the ground that Petitioner has not got the required residency period, order under Annexure-8 and 10 are required to be interfered with by this Court. 6. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 1. It is contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 22586 of 2019, Petitioner was appointed as against the post of Asst. Section Officer vide order dtd.11.05.2020 under Annexure-5. In terms of the said order Petitioner joined as an Asst. Section Officer on 12.06.2020. Since Petitioner by the time similarly situated ASOs got the benefit of promotion to the rank of Section Officer was not having the required residency period, his claim for promotion was rejected vide order dtd.07.08.2021 under Annexure-8. 6.1. It is also contended that Petitioner after being so appointed vide order dtd.11.05.2020 never raised any claim to antedate his date of appointment to the date from which person similarly situated were appointed pursuant to the recruitment undertaken by the State vide Advertisement No. 08 of 2012-13. Since it is never the case of the Petitioner to antedate his date of appointment, the prayer made to Page 4 of 4. antedate his date of joining is completely misconceived and the same is not entertainable. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner’s claim to antedate his date of joining has been rightly rejected vide order dtd.11.08.2021 under Annexure-10. 7. At this point of time, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to move a fresh representation before the Govt. to antedate his date of appointment, taking into account the order of appointment issued in favour of similarly situated ASOs, appointed pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1. 8. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha