IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20751 of 2016 P. Bhaskar Rao …. Petitioner Mr. S. Rout, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha &Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. S.B. Panda, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 12.02.2026 23. The Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court assailing Odisha State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 27.10.2016, whereby his OA No.1544 of 2014 has been negatived. In the said OA, Petitioner’s prayer was for up- setting the promotion granted to Opp. Party No.4 and to consider his case for promotion, in his stead. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner very effectively and articulately sought invalidation of the impugned order on the following grounds:- 2.1 The Opp. Party No.4 was promoted as TGT w.e.f. 11.08.2010, pursuant to the recommendation of DPC dated 23.12.2009; that promotion could not have been granted, inasmuch as the DPC suffered from coram non judice. Since the extent Rules prescribe who should head the DPC and that designated official did not held. Page 2 of 4 2.2 The Petitioner and Opp. Party No.4 gained entry into service on the same day i.e. 01.12.1994; Petitioner figured at Srl. No.2, whereas Opp. No.4 figured at Srl. No.6 in the Select List published vide order dated 01.12.1994. Subsequently, both of them were promoted as Sevaks w.e.f. 30.12.2008 and their gradation was at Srl. No.16 and Srl. No.20 respectively. That being the position, the promotion to the next cadre i.e. TGT could not have been given to the Opp. Party No.4 and ought to have been given to the Petitioner. 3. Learned AGA appearing for the official Opposite Parties, with equal vehemence resists the petition contending that the OA itself was not maintainable, inasmuch as the challenged promotion of Opp. Party No.4 as TGT happened in August, 2010, pursuant to DPC recommendation of December, 2009, whereas the petition was filed in 2014, trampling one year limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. He also tells that, Petitioner secured B.Ed. only on 01.03.2010 and therefore, he was not eligible to stake his claim for promotion as TGT, when that promotion was accorded to Opp. Party No.4. Lastly, he points out that the ground of coram non judice was not taken before the Tribunal and that it is only an after thought. 4. Having head learned counsel for the Parties and having perused at the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission of learned AGA, for the following reasons: 4.1. Admittedly, both the Petitioner & Opp. Party No.4 were appointed on 01.12.1994; Petitioner was senior to Opp. Party No.4 is true. They were promoted as Sevak on 30.12.2008; Petitioner was at Srl. No.16 and Opp. Party No.4 was at Srl. No.20 is also true. However, when Opp. Party No.4 was recommended by the DPC dated 23.12.2009 and promoted as TGT on 11.08.2010, Petitioner did not possess B.Ed. which is a pre-condition for staking claim for promotion. Without that qualification, Petitioner was not in the zone of consideration at all. Mr. Panda, is right in telling that a person, who is not or who could not be in the zone of consideration, cannot challenge appointment or promotion of another candidate, when the appointee had the said requisite qualification and eligibility. 4.2. Learned AGA, is also right in pointing out that the Petitioner had approached OAT only in 2014 when promotion of Opp. Party No.4 was made in 2010. Ordinarily Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 prescribes a period of one year way of limitation. There is no explanation whatsoever as to the long delay brooked in the matter. Settled things should not be unsettled is the rule subject to some exceptions, and the argued case of the Petitioner does not fit into any such exception. 4.3. Lastly, learned AGA is justified in telling us that the Petitioner had not pleaded the ground of coram non judice in his pleadings before the OAT and therefore, this Court cannot permit the Petitioner to take up such a contention as a virgin point in the fitness of things. Such a contention, even otherwise is not available to the Petitioner, who was not eligible to be considered for promotion, as on 23.12.2009, when the DPC met on 11.08.2010 when OP No.4 was promoted pursuant to DPC recommendation. In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is. Costs made easy. Registry to send a copy of this order to Opp. Party No.4, by Speed Post immediately. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Bijay/Sarbani Designation: Junior Stenographer