Upendra Tandi v. State Of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

WPC (OA) No. 820 of 2017 Upendra Tandi ....

Petitioner Mr. H.Bhoi, Adv.

-Versus - State of Odisha ....

Opposite Parties Standing Counsel

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

ORDER

25.08.2022 Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

None appears for the petitioner at the time of call 3.

Heard Mr. S. Jena, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department.

4.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming promotion. But in paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated as follows:- "That in reply to the averments made in para-6.5 and 6.6 of the original application, it is humbly submitted that the name of the applicant was sponsored by the authority as per Letter No.1191/Esst. Dt.15.07.2010 of Addl. District Magistrate, Bargarh The applicant was provisionally selected to appear before the District Promotion Committee, Bargarh for his promotion to the rank of Junior Clerk and found placed at Serial No.13 under SC category vide Letter No.39/Esst., Dt.10.01.2011 of Deputy Collector (Estt.) Collectorate, Bargarh. According to Letter No.39/Estt. 10.01.2011 of the District Office, Bargarh, the applicant was provisional selected to appear

before District Promotion Committee. The District Promotion Committee of Group-D employees for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk was held on 07.08.2014 under the chairmanship of Collector, Bargarh. The committee decided to conduct a viva-voice test to test the eligibility of Group-D employees. The selection of employees for promotion was made on the basis of the highest mark secured by them. Accordingly 02 posts from SC category, 03 Posts from ST Category and 08 posts from UR category were selected by the District Promotion Committee, Bargarh. The copy of the proceeding of the Department Promotion Committee held on 07.08.2018 is annexed herewith as Annexure-A/3. The following members were present in the committee. ............" 4.

In view of the above statement made in the counter affidavit, the writ petition merits no consideration which is accordingly dismissed.

(Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge Ashok