Supreme Court directs early disposal of seniority dispute: Arjun Murmu vs. State of Odisha (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 23 September 2022

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

When can a court intervene in an ongoing service dispute, especially when promotions are stalled? The Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in a case concerning the seniority of Assistant Section Officers (ASOs) in Odisha. The core issue revolved around a dispute over the inter-se seniority between ASOs recruited under a special drive for Scheduled Tribes and those recruited under the general quota. This dispute had led to a standstill in promotions, prompting the Supreme Court’s intervention. The bench comprised Justices Indira Banerjee and C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute regarding the seniority of Assistant Section Officers (ASOs) in the Governor’s Secretariat/State Secretariat of Odisha. The dispute was between two groups of ASOs: those recruited through a special recruitment drive for backlog vacancies for Scheduled Tribes and those recruited under the general quota. The special recruitment drive was initiated first, leading to the earlier appointment of candidates from that drive. Subsequently, a direct recruitment notification for the general quota was issued, and appointments followed. The State of Odisha published a tentative gradation list on 12.04.2018, assigning seniority to the general quota appointees over the special recruitees. Aggrieved by this, the special recruitees filed objections, which were disregarded, leading to the final seniority list and subsequent writ petitions.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, a learned Single Judge of the High Court passed an interim order on 24.09.2020, stating that any promotions based on the gradation list would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. This order was challenged in a Writ Appeal, where the Division Bench passed an interim order on 25.01.2021, directing that no promotions should be made without the court’s permission. The Writ Appeal was later disposed of on 24.02.2021, with a request to the Single Judge to expedite the disposal of the Writ Petition. The interim order of 24.09.2020 was continued. Subsequently, the Division Bench modified its order on 18.03.2021, continuing the interim order of 25.01.2021 until the disposal of the Writ Petition. Finally, on 14.07.2021, the Division Bench recalled its order of 18.03.2021 and restored the order of 24.02.2021. This led to the filing of the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with interim orders passed by the High Court in the context of a pending writ petition concerning seniority. There are no specific legal provisions of any statute that are discussed in the judgment. The core issue revolves around the interpretation and application of interim relief powers of the High Court in service matters, particularly concerning promotions.

Arguments

The arguments in this case revolved around the interim orders passed by the High Court and the impact of those orders on the promotional prospects of the ASOs. The appellants argued that the High Court’s orders were inconsistent and had created a situation where promotions were stalled. The State of Odisha, on the other hand, contended that the delay in promotions was due to the pendency of the writ petition and the conflicting interim orders. The arguments focused on the need to balance the rights of the parties with the administrative exigencies of the State. The primary contention of the appellants was that the promotions were being stalled due to the conflicting interim orders and that the interim order passed by the single judge was the most appropriate in the circumstances.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but focused on the nature of the interim order that should be maintained, given the conflicting orders of the High Court and the pendency of the writ petition. The core issue was to determine the appropriate interim arrangement that would balance the interests of the parties and the administrative needs of the State.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or legal provisions in this judgment. The judgment primarily focused on the procedural aspects of the case and the need to balance the interests of all parties involved. The court’s decision was based on the specific facts of the case and the need to ensure that the administrative process was not unduly hampered by the pending litigation.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, while not citing any specific authorities, addressed the issue of the interim orders. The Court noted the conflicting orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and emphasized the need to balance the interests of the parties with the administrative exigencies. The Court observed that the Writ Petition was still pending before the learned Single Judge of the High Court and that no issue was finally decided by the High Court warranting exercise of corrective jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The Court noted that the High Court had initially passed an order to allow promotions subject to the result of the writ petition. It was observed that the High Court’s interim orders had created an administrative problem by stalling promotions. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, stated:

“Normally, when the seniority list is in challenge and a number of vacancies are available in the promotional post, promotions would be permitted to be effected subject to the result of the Writ Petition carrying challenge against the seniority list.”

The Court also observed:

“The learned Single Judge of the High Court had actually passed such an order taking note of the balance of convenience. In other words, as an interim measure it was ordered by the learned Single Judge that promotion pursuant to the final gradation list would be subject to the result of the Writ Petition.”

The court further noted:

“Taking note of the totality of the circumstances and also the balance of convenience, we dispose of these Civil Appeals with request to the High Court of Orissa to dispose of the Writ Petition No.24191 of 2020 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that the administrative process was not unduly hampered by the pending litigation. The Court noted that a large number of promotional posts were lying vacant due to the pendency of the writ petition and that this was prejudicial to the administration. The Court also took into account the conflicting interim orders passed by the High Court, which had created confusion and stalled promotions. The Court’s decision to direct the High Court to expedite the disposal of the writ petition and to allow provisional promotions was aimed at balancing the rights of the parties with the administrative exigencies of the State.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is as follows:

The ratio of fact to law that influenced the court to decide is as follows:

The logical reasoning of the Court is as follows:

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized the need for an early disposal of the writ petition.
• The Court directed that if the writ petition could not be disposed of within two months, promotions could be made provisionally subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
• The judgment highlights the importance of balancing the rights of the parties with the administrative exigencies of the State.
• The Court’s intervention was aimed at ensuring that the administrative process was not unduly hampered by the pending litigation.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court of Orissa to dispose of the Writ Petition No.24191 of 2020 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Court also directed that if the disposal of the Writ Petition was not possible within the stipulated time, the respondent authorities could fill up vacancies in the promotional post of ASOs provisionally and subject to the result of the Writ Petition.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in cases of service disputes involving seniority lists, where promotions are stalled due to pending litigation, the courts should strive to balance the rights of the parties with the need for smooth administrative functioning. This decision does not alter any previous positions of law but emphasizes the need for a pragmatic approach in such cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Arjun Murmu vs. The State of Odisha & Ors. is a significant one in the context of service law. The Court’s intervention was aimed at ensuring that the administrative process was not unduly hampered by the pending litigation. The Court’s decision to direct the High Court to expedite the disposal of the writ petition and to allow provisional promotions was aimed at balancing the rights of the parties with the administrative exigencies of the State. The judgment highlights the need for a pragmatic approach in such cases and emphasizes the importance of balancing the rights of the parties with the need for smooth administrative functioning.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Category: Seniority Dispute

Child Category: Promotion

Child Category: Interim Orders

Parent Category: Constitution of India

Child Category: Article 136, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Arjun Murmu vs. State of Odisha case?
A: The main issue was a seniority dispute between Assistant Section Officers (ASOs) recruited under a special drive for Scheduled Tribes and those recruited under the general quota in Odisha, which had stalled promotions.

Q: What did the Supreme Court direct in this case?
A: The Supreme Court directed the High Court of Orissa to expedite the disposal of the pending writ petition within two months. If not possible, the Court allowed provisional promotions subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court intervene in this matter?
A: The Supreme Court intervened to ensure that the administrative process was not unduly hampered by the pending litigation and to balance the rights of the parties with the administrative exigencies of the State.

Q: What does this judgment mean for government employees facing similar seniority disputes?
A: This judgment emphasizes the need for courts to balance the rights of employees with the need for smooth administrative functioning. It also highlights that provisional promotions can be allowed while a seniority dispute is being resolved.

Q: What is the significance of the Supreme Court’s direction for provisional promotions?
A: The direction for provisional promotions ensures that vacancies are filled and the administration is not hampered while the legal dispute is being resolved. It also provides a temporary solution for employees awaiting promotions.