CUTTACK: In a significant judgment,the Orissa High Court has directed the state government to revise the seniority list of assistant section officers (ASOs) in the Odisha Secretariat Service, resolving a major dispute over inter-seniority within the cadre.
The dispute involved two batches of ASOs - direct recruits appointed through two separate advertisements and between promotees and direct recruits.
The vacation court gave the verdict on June 3 after analogous hearing on 10 petitions categorised into two groups. The first group, comprising seven petitions, involved a dispute between two sets of direct recruits, one recruited under Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC)’s Advertisement No. 06 of May 14, 2015, for ST category candidates (140), and another (811) under Advertisement No. 08 of October 6, 2012. The second group of three petitions involved disputes between promotes and direct recruits.
The bench of Justice AK Mohapatra noted that although Advertisement No. 08 was issued earlier in 2012, appointments from this list were delayed until October 2016 due to legal hurdles and administrative delays. In contrast, candidates under the 2015 advertisement were appointed on January 27, 2016 and May 18, 2016.
Justice Mohapatra endorsed the principle that seniority in government service should be based on the actual date of appointment, not the date of the recruitment advertisement or recommendation, unless a rule explicitly states otherwise.
While providing relief to candidates who were appointed earlier but placed lower in the seniority list, Justice Mohapatra ruled that the ASOs appointed earlier in 2016 under Advertisement No. 06 must be placed above those appointed later the same year under Advertisement No. 08 in the final gradation list published on June 11, 2020.
The judge further ruled that promotees must be treated as en bloc senior to the direct recruits of the same calendar year and directed the Home department to revise the ASO gradation list in line with the court’s directives, ensuring that seniority reflects the actual date of appointment.
He also ruled that promotees must be treated as en bloc senior to the direct recruits of the same calendar year.