Date of Hearing:23.10.2025 and Date of Judgment:22.01.2026
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
...... x x x x x
9.4. Since in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of M. Nagraj and Jarnail Singh, no
such quantifiable data has yet been collected and the
impugned clarification has been issued by Opp. Party
No.3 contrary to the provisions contained under Rule-6
of the 1992 Rules as well as Art-154 and 162 of the
Constitution of India, it is the view of this Court that
the impugned clarification issued on 06.05.2024,
directed to be followed in communication dated
27.02.2025 basing on the clarification issued by the Law Department on 27.02.2024, are not sustainable in
the eye of law and stand quashed. Consequentially, any
action taken basing on such clarification issued on
06.05.2024 and 27.02.2025 are also not sustainable in
the eye of law and stand quashed. The decisions
rendered by this Court in the case of Lalit Kumar
Nayak as well as Litu Behera on the face of the
provision contained under Art-16(4-A) of the
Constitution of India and the decision in the case of M.
Nagraj as well as Jarnail Singh as per the considered
view of this Court are judgments per-incuriam.
9.5. Therefore, this Court while quashing clarification
dtd.06.05.2024 and communication dtd.27.02.2025 so
issued by Opp. Party No.3 as well as consequential
action taken thereof by various departments of the
State, direct the concerned departments in the present
batch of Writ Petitions to follow the provisions
contained under Rule-3-A of the Amendment Rules,
2022 and so also the provision contained under Art16(4-A) of the Constitution of India read with the decision in the case of M. Nagraj and Jarnail Singh
with regard to promotion of SC & ST candidates.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, all
the Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
No comments:
Post a Comment