IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.15813 of 2025 Tanmay Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. B. Pujari Adv. on behalf of Mr. S. Sahoo, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr.C.K. Pradhan, AGA COROM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 15.05.2026 2. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt.28.10.2024 so passed by Opp. party No.4 under Annexure-5. Vide the said order, Petitioner was declared as an Ex-cadre Constable w.e.f 30.04.2016 till his retirement which fell due on 30.06.2054. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, Petitioner was selected and appointed as a Constable vide order dt.30.04.2016 under Anenxure-2 series. Pursuant to the said order, Petitioner joined on 30.04.2016 itself and the same is reflected in the Service Book, so opened under Annexure-3. 4.1. It is contended that while so continuing, as a regular Constable basing on an order passed by this Court in WPC (OAC) No.523 of 2019 on 24.08.2022 where in the Petitioner was not a party to the Proceeding, the impugned order under Annexure-5 was passed by Opp. party No.4, by holding the Petitioner, to have been appointed as an ex-cadre Constable from the date of his initial appointment, so issued on 30.04.2016 till his retirement on 30.06.2054. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was not a party to the Proceeding in WPC (OAC ) No.523 of 2019, basing on the order passed by this Court on 24.08.2022 and without following the principle of natural justice, Petitioner could not have been held to have been appointed as an ex- cadre Constable w.e.f 30.04.2016, till he attain the age of superannuation. It is further contended that Petitioner having been treated as an ex-cadre Constable vide the impugned order, he will be deprived to get the benefit of promotion to the next higher rank and he will continue in the rank of Constable, although which is not permissible. 4.3. Making all these submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. C.K.Pradhan, Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit, so filed by Opp. party Nos.1 to 4. Basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit, it is contended that while complying the order passed by this Court in WPC (OAC) No.523 of 2019 and while drawing a fresh select list, Petitioner was found ineligible to get the benefit of appointment. However, taking into account the fact that Petitioner has been duly appointed vide order dt.30.04.2016 and has continued w.e.f 30.04.2016, the order under Annexure-5 was passed by holding the appointment of the Petitioner to have been made as an ex-Cadre Constable w.e.f 30.04.2016. The stand taken in para-9 of the counter reads as follows: 8. That in reply to the averments made in Para- 10 of W.P(C ), it is humbly submitted that the Petitioner Tanmay Sahoo who had been appointed as Constable under SEBC (M ) Category on 30.04.2016 as the last candidate, could not find place in the re-drawn select list. But in the meantime, he had already completed 7 years of service. Government have accorded approval for continuance of C/969 Tanmay Sahoo in an Ex-Cadre post from 30.04.2016 till his retirement, who was earlier selected against the vacant post of SEBC (M) vide Notings:324 and concurrence of Finance Department at NOtings:339 in OSWAS file NO.Home-DA1- CASE1-0054-2019. Copy of the approval for continuance of C/969 Tanmay Sahoo in an Ex-cadre post from 30.04.2016 is annexed herewith as Annexure-C/4. 5.1. It is accordingly contended that since while drawing a fresh select list pursuant to the order passed by this court in WPC (OAC) 523 of 2019, Petitioner was found ineligible to get the benefit of selection and appointment in order to accommodate him taking into account his continuance w.e.f. 30.04.2016, it was decided to allow the Petitioner to continue as an ex- cadre Constable from the date of his initial appointment till he attains the age of superannuation vide the impugned order dt.28.10.2024. It is accordingly, contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, it is found that pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, Petitioner on being found eligible was selected and appointed as a Constable in SEBC (M) category vide order dt.30.04.2016 under Annexure-2 series. Pursuant to the said order, Petitioner joined as a Constable on 30.04.2016 with opening of his Service Book under Annexure-3. 6.1. However, it is found that while so continuing vide the impugned order dt.28.10.2024, Petitioner was treated as an Ex-cadre Constable w.e.f his initial date of appointment till he attains the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016. Such an order has been passed by Opp. party No.4, while complying the order passed by this Court on 24.08.2022 in WPC (OAC) No.523 of 2019. 6.2. However, it is found that in the aforesaid Writ Petition, Petitioner was not a Party to the proceeding. Not only that, while complying the order dt.24.08.2022, Petitioner was never noticed and no document has been enclosed in the counter showing compliance of the Principle of natural justice, prior to passing the impugned order on dt.28.10.2024 under Annexure-5. 6.3. Since Petitioner was not a party to the proceeding in WPC (OAC) No.523 of 2019 and principle of natural justice was never followed, while treating him as an ex- cadre Constable, this Court is of the view that Petitioner could not have been treated as an Ex-Cadre Constable so held in the impugned order dt.28.10.2024 under Annexure-5. It is the view of this court that on being treated as an ex-cadre Constable Petitioner will be deprived from getting the benefit of promotion and he will continue in the same post till he attains the age of superannuation. It is also the view of this court that Petitioner having no latches with him getting the benefit of appointment, after continuing as a cadre Constable w.e.f. 30.06.2016, Petitioner after about 8(eight) year should not have been treated as an ex-cadre Constable. 6.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis this Court while interfering with the impugned order dt.28.10.2024 so passed by Opp. Party No.4 under Annnexure-5 in treating the Petitioner as an ex-cadre Constable Petition directs Opp. party No.3 to allow the Petitioner to continue cadre as a Constable against any available vacancy or by creating a supernumerary post of Constable w.e.f. 30.04.2016. This Court directs Opp. party No.3 to pass a fresh order, as directed, within a period of 6(six) weeks form the date of receipt of this order. 6.5. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sangita