Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 22 (ORI)

Jayadev Kar v. State Of Orissa

2020-01-24

BISWANATH RATH

body2020
JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - This wit petition involves issuance of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/direction upon quashing the decision of the Promotion Committee of Pathani Samanta Planetarium (herein after called as "PSP") held on 13.9.2005, vide Annexure-15 thereby holding that the petitioner alone is legally entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Technical) of the PSP and that O.P.4 having been appointed as Technician in a lower rank not entitled to be considered along with the petitioner for the promotion involved. Further to hold that the petitioner is entitled to his pay in the revised scale of pay with effect from 1.5.1989 duly taking into account four advance increments granted to the petitioner at the time of his initial appointment in 1988 in the post of Assistant Planetarium Engineer and allowing all consequential relief. 2. Short background involving the case is PSP is a Society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is managed and controlled by the State Government in the Department of Science and Technology being an instrumentality of the State comes within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Governing Body of the PSP in its proceeding held on 6.2.1988 decided to create one post of Planetarium Engineer and two posts of Technician along with other posts in the PSP, vide Annexure-2. Based on such decision of the Governing Body, an advertisement was issued in Oriya daily, "The Samaja" on 21.4.1988 inviting applications from the intending candidates in the scale of pay of Rs.2250-3500/-. There was also simultaneous advertisement for the post of Technician in the scale of pay of Rs.1350-2975/- and Jr. Technician in the scale of pay of Rs.1050-2085/-, vide Annexure3. Pursuant to said advertisement, the petitioner, who is a Graduate Engineer working at the relevant time as a Lecturer in Electronics under the Directorate of Industries, Government of Odisha, made an application for the said post. The petitioner was also intimated, vide letter dated 23.8.1988 to appear for an interview on 31.8.1988 for appointment to the post of Planetarium Engineer, vide Annexure-4. It is claimed that though the petitioner had applied for the post of Planetarium Engineer and asked to appear for an interview involving the said post but however the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Selection Committee for posting in the rank of Sr. It is claimed that though the petitioner had applied for the post of Planetarium Engineer and asked to appear for an interview involving the said post but however the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Selection Committee for posting in the rank of Sr. Technician/Assistant Planetarium Engineer with four advance increments giving due regard to the qualification and performance, consequently the petitioner was also issued with an appointment order. Decision of the Selection Committee appears at Annexure-5 and the offer of appointment issued to the petitioner appears at Annexure-6. Based on the offer of appointment the petitioner joined the post of Assistant Planetarium Engineer. In the meantime, revised pay scale of the Government of Odisha came into effect from 1.5.1989 prescribing pay scale for both the posts of Assistant Planetarium Engineer and Technician at Rs.2580/-, as appearing at Annexure-7. It is alleged that though there may not be any dispute that both the posts, i.e., Assistant Planetarium Engineer and Technician got into one scale of pay but after applying the revised scale of pay, since the petitioner was given four additional increments on his joining the post and also considering that the Assistant Planetarium post was equivalent to the post of Senior Technician, it was incumbent upon the PSP to give the benefit of four additional increments even after the revision of the pay is implemented in the year 1989, both the petitioner and O.P.4 under no circumstance could have been placed in one salary. The petitioner made a grievance for his appointment in a lower post and also against equalizing his scale along with the post of Technician in the same scale. The grievance of the petitioner was forwarded to the Chairman, PSP, who is also the Secretary to Government in the Department of Science and Technology, who vide his note dated 29.3.1990 observed that the question of promotion of the petitioner may arise at least after three years of service of the petitioner in the PSP and that too subject to availability of a higher post. In the meantime, Government in the appropriate Department conveyed the approval of the State Government for different posts in the PSP and as against the scale of pay of the posts of Assistant Planetarium Engineer and Technician provided therein was Rs.2000-3,500/-. In the meantime, Government in the appropriate Department conveyed the approval of the State Government for different posts in the PSP and as against the scale of pay of the posts of Assistant Planetarium Engineer and Technician provided therein was Rs.2000-3,500/-. Finding such improper and illegal fixation of pay of the petitioner vis--vis O.P.4 and denial of four increments, which was allowed to him at the initial appointment of the petitioner, as Assistant Planetarium Engineer, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the Chairman of the PSP on 24.6.1996, vide Annexure-9. This representation of the petitioner was considered by the Chairman, who made an observation in his consideration that four advance increments granted to Sri Kar at the time of his initial appointment in 1988 should have been taken into account while fixing his pay in the revised scale of pay made operative from 1.5.1989 and that denial of such benefit amounts to grave injustice and thus directed for placing a proposal in the light of observation before the next Governing Body meeting of the PSP for upgrading the post of Assistant Planetarium Engineer to that of Planetarium Engineer and appointing the petitioner in the said post as his service was found to be satisfactory by the Chairman. The petitioner alleged that in spite of such clear direction, no action was taken by the Governing Body either to re-fix the scale of pay of the petitioner or to give him promotion to the post of Planetarium Engineer, for which the petitioner was constrained to submit a representation to the Governing Body making a request therein to give justice to the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner also submitted another representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, vide Annexure-11. In the meantime the case of the petitioner was also referred to the Department of Science and Technology for its consideration in the proceedings of the meeting of the Governing Body of the PSP dated 30.9.1997. Finding no outcome, the petitioner submitted a further grievance in the Grievance Cell of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, which being received the General Administration Department, Government of Odisha issued instruction to the Science and Technology Department for upgrading the post of Assistant Planetarium Engineer to that of Planetarium Engineer in the pay scale of Rs.8000/13,500/- for allowing promotional benefit to the petitioner as per the order of the Hon'ble Chief Minister dated 9.9.1998. It is alleged, in spite of clear direction by the General Administration Department in its communication dated 14.1.2003, O.Ps.1 to 3 did not respond. It is while the matter stood thus, the Governing Body of the PSP in a proceeding of its meeting dated 16.7.2005 appointed a Promotion Committee consisting of the Director, PSP and three other Members to look into the matter and recommend a suitable candidate for the post of Deputy Director (Technical) on promotion basis in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13,500/-. It is claimed, pursuant to such proceeding of the Governing Body for considering the promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Technical), even though the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Planetarium Engineer equivalent to the post of Senior Technician was the only eligible candidate, however, instead of considering the petitioner alone, the Promotion Committee also considered the case of O.P.4, who being a Technician was admittedly holding a lower post than that of the petitioner but however in the same scale of pay. The Promotion Committee taking into account the length of service, technical experience and Character Rolls of both the incumbents for last five years proceeded to recommend the case of O.P.4 observing him to be more suitable than the petitioner. Proceeding of the meeting appears at Annexure-15 giving rise to filing of the writ petition on both counts, i.e., in the matter of illegal promotion of O.P.4 and also in the matter of non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for the post of Deputy Director (Technical). 3. Miss D.Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner being authorised while referring to the above developments, taking to the pleadings involving the writ petition and the development taken place particularly indicated herein above contended that so far as fitment of scale of pay of the petitioner is concerned, at the initial joining of the petitioner, he was admittedly provided with four additional increments. Miss Mohapatra claimed that this fact should have been taken into consideration while refixing the scale of pay of the petitioner pursuant to introduction of the revised scale of pay in the year 1989. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that this allegation is real and genuine and that an injustice has been meted with the petitioner. Miss Mohapatra claimed that this fact should have been taken into consideration while refixing the scale of pay of the petitioner pursuant to introduction of the revised scale of pay in the year 1989. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that this allegation is real and genuine and that an injustice has been meted with the petitioner. The General Administration Department in paragraph-2 of its communication dated 14.1.2003 has already recommended for giving the benefit of four advance increments to the petitioner also on the premises that the petitioner was holding a post higher than that of the Technician. Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner taking into account the entire background involving the case and also the direction of the General Administration in paragraph-2 of its recommendation dated 14.1.2003 based on a direction of the Hon'ble Chief Minister dated 9.9.1998 advising the Science and Technology Department to consider the case of the petitioner in the post of Planetarium Engineer in the scale of pay of Rs.8000- 13,500/- for allowing the promotional benefit to Sri Kar, the petitioner based on the direction of the Hon'ble Chief Minister dated 9.9.1998. It is in the circumstance, Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is flagrance violation of the direction of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and had the petitioner been promoted to the post of Planetarium Engineer pursuant to the advice of the G.A. Department dated 14.1.2003 with support of direction of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the petitioner would have been the sole candidate available to be considered for the post of Deputy Director of the PSP. Further taking into account the grounds of selection of O.P.4, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no dispute that the petitioner had requisite qualification and expertise. It appears, the case of the petitioner for the post of Deputy Director (Technical) was rejected solely on account of adverse remark in his C.C.R. Miss Mohapatra here submitted that there is no C.C.R. of any employee maintained in the PSP to the knowledge of the petitioner. Further even assuming that there are C.C.Rs. of employees in the event there is any bad C.C.R. for no communication of the same, such C.C.R. has no role to play. Further even assuming that there are C.C.Rs. of employees in the event there is any bad C.C.R. for no communication of the same, such C.C.R. has no role to play. It is in the circumstance, Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that there has been gross-injustice made to the petitioner in matter of both re-fixation of his scale of pay in terms of the revised scale of pay and also not considering his case for the post of Deputy Director (Technical), further there is also no compliance of the direction of the G.A. Department based on the direction of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner thus prayed this Court for interfering with the impugned order and issuing necessary directions for the ends of justice. 4. Sri S.Nanda, learned counsel for the contesting O.P.-PSP in his objection while seriously objecting to the claim of the petitioner, however did not dispute the fact of initial appointment of the petitioner in a lower grade with four advance increments and also the fact that the petitioner even though called for and had the qualification for the post of Planetarium Engineer but appointed as Sr.Technician/Assistant Planetarium Engineer and that O.P.4 was appointed as Technician in the scale of pay of Rs.1350-2975/- and that O.P.4 was not granted with the additional increments, which have been granted in favour of the petitioner at his initial joining and that the case of both the petitioner and O.P.4 was taken up for consideration for the post of Deputy Director (Technical). Sri Nanda however made an attempt to justify the action of the Management in the matter of promotion of O.P.4 by referring to the proceeding of the Promotional Committee of the PSP involving the selection for the post of Deputy Director (Technical) for the remark there that O.P.4 was found more suitable than the petitioner and thus he was deserving to be appointed as Deputy Director (Technical) as appearing at Annexure-15. Sri Nanda, learned counsel for the PSP however did not dispute to the fact that the petitioner's moving the Chairman ventilating his grievance as well as the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State on the selfsame cause of action and that there has been some development through the Chairman as well as through the Office of the General Administration Department. Sri Nanda, learned counsel for the PSP however did not dispute to the fact that the petitioner's moving the Chairman ventilating his grievance as well as the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State on the selfsame cause of action and that there has been some development through the Chairman as well as through the Office of the General Administration Department. Sri Nanda however objected to the working of recommendation of the Chairman on the premises that the recommendation of the Chairman in favour of the petitioner was though placed in the Governing Body for its approval but the Governing Body declined to entertain the recommendation made by the Chairman. He however has no response to the development through the observation of the Hon'ble Chief Minister as well as the advice of the General Administration Department. Sri Nanda, learned counsel for the PSP in his further submission taking this Court to the counter averments in paragraph-15 contended that both the petitioner and O.P.4 having equal qualification and holding the post in same scale of pay stood at par in the matter of consideration of their case for the post of Deputy Director (Technical). Sri Nanda also bringing the scale of pay of both the petitioner and O.P.4 submitted that there was no challenge to the same by the petitioner except the petitioner making some correspondences with the Chairman as well as the Hon'ble Chief Minister as appearing at Annexures-10 & 11. This Court here finds, the stand of the contesting O.P.-PSP that the petitioner did not dispute the fixation of pay of the petitioner on application of the ORSP Rules, 1989 at Rs.2000- 3500/- remains contrary to their own counter averment in paragraph-18 so also contrary to the documents available at Annexures-10 & 11 and Annexure-14. So far as the claim of the petitioner in the matter of promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Technical), Sri Nanda, learned counsel for the PSP contested the same on the premises that once the case of two persons were placed before the Promotional Committee, the Promotional Committee found O.P.4 more suitable than the other candidate available for the purpose, this being the decision of the competent authority, there is no scope for the High Court to interfere in such assessment. Sri Nanda also contended that the High Court cannot sit as an appellate authority in the matter of assessment by the authority. 5. Sri Nanda also contended that the High Court cannot sit as an appellate authority in the matter of assessment by the authority. 5. Sri P.Acharya, learned senior counsel for O.P.4 while supporting the contest of O.Ps.2 & 3 but however in submitting his submission contended that when two candidates were placed before the Promotional Committee and the Committee in consideration of both the cases found one suitable and the assessment on suitability at the instance of the D.P.C. is no more assailable. It is in the circumstance, Sri Acharya, learned senior counsel for O.P.4 also objected to the claim of the petitioner and thereby prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Reading the counter of O.Ps.2 & 3 through paragraph-18, it appears, involving the direction of the Chairman, the case of the petitioner was taken up for consideration in the meeting of the Governing Body held on 30.9.1997 where the Governing Body reiterated their earlier decision held on 9.6.93 as follows :- "Existing Rules do not provide for additional increments at the stage of fixation of pay. Hence, the representation of Sri Kar was rejected." On the question of consideration of the case of the petitioner as Planetarium Engineer, the said issue was also referred to a Committee constituted specifically for all purposes and the SubCommittee in its meeting dated 10.2.98 observed as follows :- "In view of the financial stringency of the Planetarium, the question of creation of the post of Planetarium Engineer does not arise and therefore, the representation of Sri Kar is rejected." Here it appears that there has been consideration of the request of the Chairman of the PSP and rejection of the same by the Governing Body of the PSP. It is at this stage, taking into consideration the advice of the General Administration Department dated 14.1.2003 and going through the response of O.Ps.2 & 3 through counter at paragraph-19, this Court finds, the O.Ps. have been very intelligently avoided the issue of advisory of the General Administration Department dated 14.1.2003 appearing in paragraph-22 of the writ petition. The counter affidavit is absolutely silent on consideration of the same. have been very intelligently avoided the issue of advisory of the General Administration Department dated 14.1.2003 appearing in paragraph-22 of the writ petition. The counter affidavit is absolutely silent on consideration of the same. This Court here finds, there may not be any difficulty on the Governing Body to turn down the request of the Chairman but the General Administration Department being the Head of the Departments and the direction of the General Administration Department since based on the order of the Hon'ble Chief Minister dated 9.9.98 in absence of any denial to the existence of such order in the counter affidavit of O.Ps.2 & 3, this Court observes, for the direction of the General Administration Department dated 14.1.2003 and from the pleadings of both the parties, though O.P.4 was holding the post of Technician initially but however for considering the case of the petitioner for Planetarium Engineer but appointing him in a lower post but with four advance increments from the beginning, for the opinion of this Court, there is no consideration of the direction of the General Administration Department dated 14.1.2003 involving the petitioner as of now, the petitioner deserves to get a direction from this Court to O.Ps.2 & 3 to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the direction of the General Administration dated 14.1.2003 and while passing appropriate order place the position of the petitioner accordingly with all consequential benefits along with payment of arrear, if any, with interest @ 8% per annum all through. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties on the issue of petitioner being deprived of advantage of four advance increments and also of consideration of both the case involving the impugned order, this Court finds, there is no dispute that the PSP originally had a post of Planetarium Engineer. The proceeding of the meeting of the Governing Body dated 6.2.1988 at Clause-d makes it clear that Planetarium Engineer and, Technician are amongst the posts created along with four other posts indicated therein. It is consequent upon such resolution of the Governing Body on 6.2.1988, an advertisement was made in the local daily "The Samaja" dated 21.4.1988, vide Anexure-3 for filling up several posts including that of Planetarium Engineer. The pay scale for the post of Planetarium Engineer was fixed at Rs.2250-3500/-, for the post of Technician at Rs.1350-2975/- and Jr. Technician at Rs.1050- 2085/-. The pay scale for the post of Planetarium Engineer was fixed at Rs.2250-3500/-, for the post of Technician at Rs.1350-2975/- and Jr. Technician at Rs.1050- 2085/-. It also appears, the petitioner was qualified to appear the interview for the post of Planetarium Engineer, vide Annexure-4 for which he was called. But it surprisingly surfaces from Annexure-5, a proceeding of the Selection Committee for selection of technical staff consisting of the Chairman and four Members in its meeting dated 31.8.1988 in their decision indicated that the Committee recommended the name of the present petitioner against the post in the rank of Senior Technician/Assistant Planetarium Engineer. This Court finds surprise here as to when the Governing Body in its meeting dated 6.2.1988 decided to create the posts of Director, Deputy Director, Planetarium Engineer, Technician, Stenographer & Attendant, it is not known why the petitioner, who was though called to appear the interview for the post of Planetarium Engineer, was appointed as Assistant Planetarium Engineer. Again it is also established that the post of Assistant Planetarium Engineer is equivalent to Senior Technician. Be that as it may, while appointing the petitioner as Assistant Planetarium Engineer, may be for offering the petitioner a lower post, he was given four additional increments with the scale of pay attached to the position of Technician at Rs.1350-2975/-, which benefit ought to have continued till superannuation of the petitioner. 8. Looking to the introduction of the ORSP Rules, 1989 and the scale of pay attached to the post of Assistant Planetarium Engineer since September, 1988 added to four advance increments @ Rs.55/- per month, the petitioner was entitled to Rs.1350/- + Rs.220/- (i.e. four increments @ Rs.55/-) + D.A. @ 8%, as admissible then making it total Rs.1696/- and the Technician with the same basic pay in September, 1988 added with D.A. @ 8% at the relevant point of time was getting Rs.1350/- + Rs.108/- total Rs.1458/- taking into consideration the ORSP Rules , 1989 came into force on 1.5.1989 bringing the basic pay of the Assistant Planetarium Engineer and the Technician in par at Rs.2000-3500/-. The basic pay of the petitioner, who was holding the post of Assistant Planetarium Engineer, was fixed at Rs.2000/- and D.A. @ 29% at the relevant time in May, 1989. The petitioner was paid at Rs.2580/- whereas O.P.4, who was continuing as technician, was also paid at Rs.2580/-. The basic pay of the petitioner, who was holding the post of Assistant Planetarium Engineer, was fixed at Rs.2000/- and D.A. @ 29% at the relevant time in May, 1989. The petitioner was paid at Rs.2580/- whereas O.P.4, who was continuing as technician, was also paid at Rs.2580/-. This Court finds, therein denial of benefit of advance increments, which the petitioner was already in enjoyment which ought to have been continued even on the introduction of the Revision of Scale of Pay, 1989. For the above disclosure in the worse situation the petitioner is entitled to Rs.2000/- along with four advance increments affected in the revised scale of pay with effect from 1.5.1989 + D.A. @ 29% with effect from May, 1989 instead of Rs.2580/- paid to him, on implementation of revision of scale of pay in May, 1989 his pay on revised scale of pay should have been the basic + four increments + 29% D.A. This Court accordingly interfering with the decision of the Promotion Committee, vide Annexure-15 sets aside the same and directs immediate grant of the benefit of four advance increments to the petitioner since the date of implementation of the revised scale of pay on 1.5.1989. Entire arrear and also involving the other revised scale of pay introduced in the meantime be calculated within a period of one month and the arrear amount shall be released in favour of the petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum all through. Direction so far as considering the case of the petitioner for Planetarium Engineer in terms of the direction of the General Administration Department shall also be concluded within a period of two months hence. 9. Now coming to consider other aspect, i.e., nonconsideration of the case of the petitioner for the post of Deputy Director (Technical), a post higher than the post of Assistant Planetarium Engineer, a post two stages higher than the Assistant Planetarium Engineer and three stages higher than the post of Technician even considering that the posts of Assistant Planetarium Engineer and Technician belong to same scale of pay, as clearly reveals from Annexure-8. It is at this point of consideration, this Court taking into account the grievance of the petitioner to the Chairman, vide Annexure-9 as well as the Grievance Cell, finds, considering the matter, giving due regard to the claim of the petitioner with supporting materials, the Chairman of the PSP on 14.2.1997 made the following noting/observation :- "1. The four advance increments granted to Sri Kar at the time of his initial appointment in 1988 should have been taken into account while fixing his pay in the revised scale of pay made operative from 1.5.1989. Denial of this benefit amounts to a grave injustice done to hi. Director, PSP must move S & T Department even at this stage for rectification of this injustice placing full facts in the perspective. 2. Director, PSP shall place before the Chairman a detailed report on the performance of Shri Kar during his last eight years of service and offer his views if Shri Kar merited being promoted to the post of Planetarium Engineer now. In the context that way back in 1988 PSP had advertised for this higher post of Planetarium Engineer and that Shri Kar had applied for the post and fulfilled the required academic qualification, that the Chairman had passed orders on 29.3.90 that the question of promotion could be considered on completion of three years by the incumbent, a proposal should now be placed before the next Governing Body meeting of PSP for upgrading the post of Assistant Planetarium Engineer to that of Planetarium Engineer and appoint Shri Kar to the said post provided his performance and appraisal as above is found satisfactory by the Chairman. On approval of the Governing Body, Government should be moved for upgradation of the post. Director, PSP may take action on the above line. On approval of the Governing Body, Government should be moved for upgradation of the post. Director, PSP may take action on the above line. A copy of this note is being sent to Director, S & T in the Department of Science & Technology for record and necessary action in the Department." In addition to the observation of the Chairman, it further surfaces from the pleading that on the grievance of the petitioner, there appears, there is also direction of the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 9.9.1998 and based on such direction, the General Administration Department in its correspondence dated 14.1.2003 gave the following advice to the Department of Science and Technology :- "The Science and Technology Department are advised to consider the claims of Shri Jayadev Kar, Asst. Planetarium Engineer of the Pathani Samanta Planetarium, Bhubaneswar in the following manner. 1. The post of Asst. Planetarium Engineer of the Pathani Samanta Planetarium created vide their letter No.103/ST, dt.8.1.93 (Flag-'C') in the scale of pay of Rs.2000- 3500/- (Rs.6,500-10,500/- revised) may be upgraded to that of Planetarium Engineer in the scale of pay of Rs.8,000- 13,500/- for allowing promotional benefit to Shri Kar, as per orders dtd.9.9.98 to Hon'ble Chief Minister. 2. The post of Technician of the Planetarium carried the scale of pay equal to that of the post of Asst. Planetarium Engineer which is a higher post equivalent to Sr. Technician. It would, therefore, be desirable to allow four advance increments to the incumbent as per decision of the Selection Committee met on 31.8.88 as he has been holding a post higher than that of the Technician." 10. Answering the objection of the opposite parties that there is no scope for interference by a Writ Court in the matter of decision of Selection Committee, this Court observes that when the decision of the authority becomes arbitrary and capricious, hands of the writ court is not tight. There is no dispute with regard to qualification aspect involving both the petitioner and O.P.4. There is also no dispute that the petitioner was in a higher post than O.P.4 all through and also the petitioner has been illegally prevented from drawing the higher scale of pay than O.P.4 and for the direction in this writ petition, the petitioner will be deemed to be continuing in higher scale of pay than O.P.4. There is also no dispute that the petitioner was in a higher post than O.P.4 all through and also the petitioner has been illegally prevented from drawing the higher scale of pay than O.P.4 and for the direction in this writ petition, the petitioner will be deemed to be continuing in higher scale of pay than O.P.4. Further for the disclosures made in paragraph-9, it is also found that there has always been recommendation by higher authority to consider the case for higher post. 11. Now the only question to be determined is as to whether there is any sound reason to come to the conclusion that O.P.4 is more suitable than the petitioner, if the C.C.R. at all available or prepared for the purpose of consideration of this promotion. 12. Nowhere through the pleadings or submissions of the parties, there is any clarity as to any C.C.R. involving both the petitioner as well as O.P.4 was being maintained, this Court here observes, in the event the C.C.R. of any person of any year becomes bad, then such bad C.C.R. should have been brought to the notice of the petitioner and he should have been given an opportunity of either representing for improvement of the same or would have attempted to improve the C.C.R. for the next year onwards. This Court in a decision in the case of Ajit Narayan Mohapatra vrs. Union of India & others involving W.P.(C) No.371 of 2006 decided by this Court on 7.1.2020 has already come to hold that noncommunicated C.C.R. has nothing to do with consideration of the case of the person involving future promotion. From the overall assessment of the case of the petitioner as well as O.P.4, this Court finds, in the initial appointment in the year 1988, admittedly the petitioner though was called for Planetarium Engineer but was appointed as Assistant Planetarium Engineer equivalent to Senior Technician but however with grant of benefit of four advance increments. Similarly, O.P.4 was also admittedly appointed as Technician definitely at a lower position than the petitioner. This Court, therefore, finds, at the initial stage, both the petitioner as well as O.P.4 not only held different positions even the petitioner started his career with Rs.1696/- as monthly salary whereas O.P.4 started his career at Rs.1458/- as his salary. Similarly, O.P.4 was also admittedly appointed as Technician definitely at a lower position than the petitioner. This Court, therefore, finds, at the initial stage, both the petitioner as well as O.P.4 not only held different positions even the petitioner started his career with Rs.1696/- as monthly salary whereas O.P.4 started his career at Rs.1458/- as his salary. Now coming to the document at Annexure-8 issued by the Government of Odisha in Science & Technology Department reflecting the post sanctioned in the PSP, this Court finds, the post of Assistant Planetarium Engineer though carries the same scale with that of Technician but while the post of Assistant Planetarium Engineer is placed at serial no.4, the Technician position is placed at serial no.5 in the post sanctioned by the Government. Admittedly, the Assistant Planetarium Engineer for grant of advance increments from his joining in 1988 appears to be not only continuing in a higher post than the Technician but was also in receipt of higher scale than O.P.4 who held Technician position. This apart, this Court also finds from the recommendation of the Chairman on consideration of the case of the petitioner for continuance of the benefit through advance increments on implementation of the revised scale of pay, 1989, the Chairman made the following noting/observation :- "As resolved by the governing Body and approved by Science & Technology Department, Govt. of Orissa, the post is to be filled up by technical person with engineering degree in electronics/electrical branch with adequate experience in technical matters over planetarium equipments from among serving staff of PSP. The scrutiny of the staff of PSP shows that only two persons fulfill the criteria to be considered for the post. 1. Er.Jayadev Kar 2. Er.Subhendu Pattnaik Therefore, only these two cases came into the zone of consideration before the promotion committee. The regular practice of 3 times of the post to be filled up to come under the zone of consideration could not be followed. The committee also observed that the provisions of ORV act and rules does not apply in this case as it is promotion to Grade-"A" post and only one post to be filled up. Apart from length of service and technical experience, the committee examined the Character Rolls of both the incumbents for the last five years. Examining all the aspects the committee unanimously decided that Er. Apart from length of service and technical experience, the committee examined the Character Rolls of both the incumbents for the last five years. Examining all the aspects the committee unanimously decided that Er. Subhendu Pattnaik is the deserving candidate to be promoted to the post of Dy. Director (Technical) of PSP." This Court here observes, the Chairman, who also remains head of the concerned Department, had also the feeling that there has been discrimination meted against the petitioner, and therefore, not only directed for grant of benefit of advance increments on implementation of the ORSP Rules, 1989 but also suggested for upgradation of the post of the petitioner. Similarly on his request to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and on the Hon'ble Chief Minister's order dated 9.9.1998, the General Administration Department being the Head of all the Departments has also in realisation of the genuineness in the claim of the petitioner came to direct as follows :- "The Science and Technology Department are advised to consider the claims of Shri Jayadev Kar, Asst. Planetarium Engineer of the Pathani Samanta Planetarium, Bhubaneswar in the following manner. 1. The post of Asst. Planetarium Engineer of the Pathani Samanta Planetarium created vide their letter No.103/ST, dt.8.1.93 (Flag-'C') in the scale of pay of Rs.2000-3500/- (Rs.6,500-10,500/- revised) may be upgraded to that of Planetarium Engineer in the scale of pay of Rs.8,000-13,500/- for allowing promotional benefit to Shri Kar, as per orders dtd.9.9.98 of Hon'ble Chief Minister. 2. The post of Technician of the Planetarium carries the scale of pay equal to that of the post of Asst. Planetarium Engineer which is a higher post equivalent to Sr. Technician. It would, therefore, be desirable to allow four advance increments to the incumbent as per decision of the Selection Committee met on 31.8.88, as he has been holding a post higher than that of the Technician." 13. From the entire counter of O.Ps.2 & 3 as well as O.P.4, this Court nowhere finds any denial to this development. Technician. It would, therefore, be desirable to allow four advance increments to the incumbent as per decision of the Selection Committee met on 31.8.88, as he has been holding a post higher than that of the Technician." 13. From the entire counter of O.Ps.2 & 3 as well as O.P.4, this Court nowhere finds any denial to this development. It is in the circumstance and for the recommendation of the Chairman as well as the observation of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and advice of the General Administration Department, a mere reflection in the proceeding of the D.P.C. that the candidate selected stood better than other candidate, the petitioner appears to be erroneous and in absence of any material establishing that there is reason to come to such conclusion. It is on the other hand, the petitioner's case has lot of supports. This Court Finds, such finding becomes erroneous and unfounded. It is in the above circumstance, this Court while interfering with the decision of the PSP in the matter of selection for the post of Deputy Director (Technical) involved herein directs the PSP to re-do the exercise of selection for the aforesaid post involving the petitioner as well as O.P.4. Entire exercise be concluded within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order and decision be taken also taking into consideration the developments taken place in support of the petitioner. 14. With the aforesaid observation & direction including the direction in Paragraph-7 of this judgment, the writ petition stands allowed. No cost.