W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 1 of 93

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

W.A. No.100 of 2026 (CNR No.ODHC010035172026),

W.A. No.106 of 2026 (CNR No.ODHC010035132026)

&

W.A. No.107 of 2026 (CNR No.ODHC010035142026)

In the matter of an Appeal under Article 4 of

the Odisha High Court Order, 1948

read with

Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting

the High Court of Judicature at Patna

and

Rule 6 of Chapter-III and Rule 2 of Chapter-VIII

of the Rules of the High Court of Odisha, 1948.

***

W.A. No.100 of 2026:

Dr. Labangalata Bisoi

Aged about 76 years

Daughter of Krishna Chandra Bisoi

Retired as Reader in Education from

Radhanath I.A.S.E., Cuttack

At present residing

At: Mohanadi Vihar, Plot No. 1298

P.O.: Nayabazar, District: Cuttack. … Appellant

(Petitioner in

writ petition)

-VERSUS-

1. State of Odisha

Represented through its

Principal Secretary

Higher Education Department WA/100/2026

ODHC010035172026

2026:OHC:47-DB

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 2 of 93

Secretariat Building

Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.

2. The Director

Higher Education

Heads of Department Building

Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha. … Respondents

(Opposite parties

in writ petition).

W.A. No.106 of 2026:

Dr. Uma Chand Lal

Aged about 67 years

Son of Late Moti Lal

Retired as Reader in Commerce

From B.J.B. Autonomous College

Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha,

At present residing

At: Plot No.N4/268

IRC Village, Bhubaneswar

District: Khordha. … Appellant

(Petitioner in

writ petition)

-VERSUS-

1. State of Odisha

Represented through its

Principal Secretary

Higher Education Department

Secretariat Building

Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.

2. The Director

Higher Education

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 3 of 93

Heads of Department Building

Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha. … Respondents

(Opposite parties

in writ petition).

W.A. No.107 of 2026:

Dr. Rama Nath Acharya

Aged about 69 years

Son of Late B. Acharya

Retired as

Reader in Physics

From Regional Office of H.E.

Southern Division, Berhampur

At present residing

At: Medical Colony, 5

th Line

Berhampur, District: Ganjam. … Appellant

(Petitioner in

writ petition)

-VERSUS-

1. State of Odisha

Represented through its

Principal Secretary

Higher Education Department

Secretariat Building

Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.

2. The Director

Higher Education

Heads of Department Building

Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha. … Respondents

(Opposite parties

in writ petition).

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 4 of 93

Advocates appeared in these cases:

W.A. No.100 of 2026:

For the Appellant : Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath

Senior Advocate

Assisted by

M/s. Saibrata Rath,

Adhiraj Behera, Shradha Das,

Sidhant Chandan,

Ankit Mohanty,

Swagat Mohapatra and

Adarsh Biswal, Advocates

For the Respondents : Mr. Saswat Das,

Additional Government Advocate

W.A. No.106 of 2026:

For the Appellant : Mr. Subir Palit

Senior Advocate

Assisted by

Mr. Satya Brata Dash,

Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. Saswat Das,

Additional Government Advocate

W.A. No.107 of 2026:

For the Appellant : Mr. Budhadev Routray

Senior Advocate

Assisted by

M/s. Subhadutta Routray

Shakti Sekhar, Jagdish Biswal,

and Soumyakesh Swain,

Advocates

For the Respondents : Mr. Saswat Das,

Additional Government Advocate

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 5 of 93

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE

MR. HARISH TANDON

AND

HONOURABLE JUSTICE

MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Date of Hearing : 22.06.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 20.08.2026

JUDGMENT

MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.—

Assailed in these intra-Court appeals is a common Order

dated 10.12.2025 (Annexure-15) of the learned Single

Judge disposing off batch of writ petitions, bearing

W.P.(C) No.33579 of 2025, W.P.(C) No.33628 of 2025

and W.P.(C) No.33720 of 2025 filed by the appellants,

retired in the post of Reader, having raised identical

issue(s).

Facts:

2. Similitude in narration of facts in all these appeals and

the writ petitions being found, facts disclosed in W.A.

No.100 of 2026 (pertaining to W.P.(C) No.33579 of 2025)

have been stated hereunder. However, certain facts

necessary for adjudication of the issue found deficient in

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 6 of 93

other memorandum of appeals/writ petitions have also

been discussed.

3. As unfurled in W.A. No.100 of 2026, the appellant-

petitioner being selected on the recommendation of the

Odisha Public Service Commission was appointed as

Lecturer (Senior Scale) on 11.04.1986. By virtue of the

Odisha Education Service (College Branch) Recruitment

Rules, 1990 (for convenience referred to as ―College

Branch Rules, 1990‖), deemed to have come into force

with effect from 01.01.1986, the petitioner was placed in

the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) with effect from

11.04.1986 and subsequently in the post of Reader with

effect from 11.04.1994 in terms of Rules 8 and 9 ibid.

The post of ―Reader‖ has been re-designated and called

as ―Associate Professor‖ vide Government of Odisha in

Higher Education Department Resolution No.7889 –HE-

FEIB-MISC-43/2016/HE, dated 04.04.2016.

3.1. It is claimed by the appellant that though she had

satisfied the criteria specified to be eligible for being

promoted to the post of ―Professor‖, as no selection was

conducted by the Odisha Public Service Commission as

per the Odisha Education Service (Professors‘ Grade)

Recruitment Rules, 1990 (be referred to as ―Professors‘

Grade Rules‖, for brevity), her case was not considered

in its right earnest.

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 7 of 93

3.2. It is alleged that ignoring to consider the case of the

appellant

1 for promotion, the respondents have accorded

promotion in the rank of ―Professor‖ to seventy-six

Associate Professors, most of whom were juniors to the

appellant(s), under the Career Advancement Scheme as

envisioned in THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION

NOTIFICATION ON REVISION OF PAY SCALES, MINIMUM

QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS IN UNIVERSITIES

AND COLLEGES AND OTHER MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF

STANDARDS, 1998‖ (hereinafter be referred to as ―CAS‖).

3.3. The grievance of the appellant/petitioner as emanated

from averments contained in paragraph 17 of the

memorandum of writ appeal is that by way of Resolution

bearing No.65312/N.IPM/UN-36/99/HE, dated

31.12.1999 (Annexure-7) the Government of Odisha in

Higher Education Department adopted the

recommendations of the University Grants Commission

and have taken a decision to make the CAS applicable to

all the teachers in the Colleges, who were in receipt of

Scale of Pay specified by the University Grants

Commission as on 01.01.1996, and consequently they

would be entitled to be placed in the Lecture (Senior

Scale), Lecturer (Selection Grade), Reader and Professor

1

The post of ―Reader‖ being re-designated as Associate Professor in terms of

Resolution No.7889–HE-FEIB-MISC-43/2016/HE, dated 04.04.2016 issued by

the Higher Education Department, which is now aligned with ―Assistant

Professor (Stage-III)‖ by virtue of the Odisha Education Service (College Branch),

Rules, 2020 repealing the Odisha Education Service (College Branch), 1990 and

the Odisha Education Service (Professors‘ Grade) Rules, 1990.

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 8 of 93

(Promotion) in accordance with the University Grants

Commission Guidelines. Insofar as the placement of

appellant in the CAS is concerned, she had already been

placed in the position of Lecturer (Senior Scale) and

drawing Scale of Pay relevant for Reader. Nonetheless, it

is claimed that the appellant was to be placed in the

Scale of Pay applicable to a ―Professor‖ with effect from

11.04.2002, i.e., after 8 years of service as ―Reader‖ to be

counted from 11.04.1994 in view of Clause 4.9.0 read

with Clause 4.10 of the Resolution dated 31.12.1999.

3.4. In pursuance of Rule 13 of the Odisha Education Service

(College Branch) Recruitment Rules, 2020 the

Department of Higher Education issued Notification

bearing No.39664— HE-GCET-MISC-0122-2021/HE,

dated 30.09.2021, promoting seventy-six numbers of

teachers of Associate Professors or equivalent rank

belonging to the Odisha Education Service (College

Branch) Cadre carrying Scale of Pay in Level-14 of the

Pay Matrix under the Odisha Revised Scales of Pay (CT)

Rules, 2019 to the rank of Professor. As the

representations of many similarly circumstanced

teachers being considered, various writ petitions were

filed, including W.P.(C) No.6034 of 2025 (writ petition of

present appellant). Said writ application came to be

disposed of on 06.03.2025 reserving liberty to the

appellant to file representation before the Principal

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 9 of 93

Secretary, Higher Education Department with further

direction to the said authority to consider such

representation and communicate the order passed

thereon to the appellant.

3.5. The Representation dated 02.04.2025 so filed by the

appellant being considered by the Commissioner- cum-

Secretary to Government in the Department of Higher

Education vide Order dated 13.10.2025 (Annexure-13),

the claim of the appellant came to be refused on the

ground that the Odisha Education Service (College

Branch) Recruitment Rules, 2020 came into force with

effect from 18.02.2021, but the appellant got retired on

superannuation before the said date in the post of

Reader and the promotion to the rank of Professor

accorded to seventy-six Associate Professors was made

under the said College Branch Rules promulgated in the

year 2021.

3.6. Being dissatisfied with such rejection of representation,

a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.33579 of 2025, was

filed by the appellant questioning the propriety of Order

dated 13.10.2025 of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to

Government in the Department of Higher Education.

Said writ petition being dismissed along with ten other

writ petitions tagged together vide common Order dated

10.12.2025, afore-noted intra-Court appeals have been

filed.

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 10 of 93

Hearing:

4. Having conceded that the facts in all these appeals are

identical and there was no much variation, the

arguments are advanced. This Court proceeded to hear

the counsel appearing for respective parties at length.

4.1. Heard Sri Budhadev Routray, Sri Prafulla Kumar Rath

and Subir Palit, learned Senior Advocates assisted by Sri

Subhodutta Routray, Sri Adhiraj Behera and Ms.

Ananya Pradhan, learned Advocates for the appellants/

petitioners; Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional

Government Advocate for the opposite parties.

4.2. After conclusion of the hearing, the matter is reserved

for preparation and delivery of Judgment/Order.

Relevant provisions:

5. Provisions so far as relevant for the present purpose are

extracted hereunder:

5.1. Provisions of the Odisha Education Service (College

Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990

2:

―1. Short title and commencement.—f

(1) These Rules may be called the Odisha Education

Service (College Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990.

2

In terms of Rule 1(2), the Odisha Education Service (College Branch)

Recruitment Rules, 1990, came into force with effect from 01.01.1986.

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 11 of 93

(2) They shall be deemed to have come into force with

effect from the 1st day of January, 1986.

2. Definitions.—

In these Rules, unless tile context otherwise

requires—

(a) AUTONOMOUS COLLEGE means any College

declared as such by the University constituted

under the Odisha Universities Act, 1989;

(b) COLLEGE means a Government College

imparting teaching of +3 EDUCATION and of

above standard;

(c) COMMISSION means the Odisha Public Service

Commission;

(d) COMMITTEE means the Screening Committee

constituted under these Rules;

(e) DISCIPLINE means a subject in which teaching is

imparted in a College;

(f) GOVERNMENT means the Government of Odisha;

(g) LEAD COLLEGE means any College declared as

such by Government from time to time;

3[(h) REGULAR APPOINTMENT means the appointment of

a Lecturer made by the Government on the

recommendation of the Commission.]

3

Substituted clause (h) of Rule 2 with effect from 01.01.1993 by virt ue of the

Odisha Education Service (College Branch) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules,

1995, being published in the Odisha Gazette, Extraordinary No.1427, date d

18.12.1995. Prior to substitution, said clause stood thus:

―[(h) REGULAR APPOINTMENT means the appointment of a Lecturer made by the

competent authority on the recommendation of the Commission and the

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 12 of 93

(i) SERVICE means the Odisha Education Service

(College Branch);

(j) UGC means the Universities Grants

Commission of India;

(k) Year means the Calendar Year.

3. Constitution of the service.—

(1) The service shall comprise of the following categories

of posts:

Lecturer

Lecturer (Senior Scale)

Assistant Directors in the Directorate of Education

Reader

4[***]

Principals of Degree College other than a Lead

College or an Autonomous College

Vice-Principals of Colleges

Deputy Directors in the Directorate of Education

Secretary, Selection Board

(2) The service shall also comprise of such other

categories of posts as the State Government may

determine from time to time.

(3) The scale of pay of the posts in different grade and

posts of the service shall be such as may be

determined by the Government from time to time.

appointment of Lecturers regularised from a particular date by

Government Order;

4

Omitted ―/Lecturer (Selection Grade)‖ vide Higher Education Department

Notification No.5442-II-E/A(1)-9/91-HE, dated 26.02.1993.

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 13 of 93

9. Appointment in the Grade of Reader.—

(1) The provisions of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 8 shall

be followed mutatis mutandis, in the matter of

selection and appointment of Readers.

5[(2) A Lecturer in order to be eligible for consideration by

the Screening Committee constituted under Rule 11

must have completed—

(a) sixteen years of service as such under the

Odisha Education Service after regular

appointment; or

(b) thirteen years of service as such under the

Odisha Education Service after regular

appointment and have acquired a Ph.D., D.Litt.

5

Substituted sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 with effect from 26.02.1993 by virtue of the

Odisha Education Service (College Branch) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules,

1993, being published in the Odisha Gazette, Extraordinary No.333, dated

26.02.1993. Prior to substitution, said sub-rule stood thus:

―(2) A lecturer in order to be eligible for consideration by the Committee

constituted under Rule 11 must have—

(a) a Ph. D degree from a recognised University in the concerned discipline;

(b) completed 8 years of service in the senior scale:

Provided that the requirement of 8 years shall be relaxed to the extent of

three years in case of Lecturers in the Senior Scale if he has acquired the

Ph.D. degree in the concerned discipline while continuing in the Grade of

Lecturer (Senior Scale):

Provided further that the requirement of 8 years of service in the Grade of

Lecturer (Senior Scale) shall not be applicable to a Lecturer who has

already completed 13 years service as such under Odisha Education

Service after regular appointment if he has acquired a Ph.D. degree from a

recognised University;

(c) consistently good performance appraisal reports;

(d) made some mark in the areas of scholarship and research as evidenced

by the self-assessment, reports of referees, quality of publications,

contribution to educational innovations and design of new courses and

curricula;

(e) Participated in two refresher courses/Summer Institutes each of

approximately four weeks duration or engaged in other appropriate

continuing education programmes of comparable quality as may be

specified by the U.G.C. on being sponsored by Government/Director,

Higher Education after placement in the Senior Scale:

Provided that in respect of cases due for consideration up to 31.12.1990,

Government may relax the applicability of this provision.‖

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 14 of 93

or D.Sc. degree from a recognised University in

the concerned discipline, or fifteen years of

service as such under the Odisha Education

Service after regular appointment and acquired

a M.Phil. or M.Litt. degree in the concerned

discipline; or

(c) eight years of service in the Grade of

Lecturer (Senior Scale); or

(d) five years of service in the Grade of Lecturer

(Senior Scale) and acquired a Ph.D., D.Litt. or

D.Sc. degree in the concerned discipline or

seven years of service in the Grade of Lecturer

(Senior Scale) and acquired a M.Phil. or M.Litt.

degree in the concerned discipline while

continuing in the said Grade;

(e) consistently good performance appraisal

reports;

(f) made some work in the areas of scholarship

and research as evidenced by the self-

assessment reports, quality of publications,

contribution to educational innovations and

design of new courses and curricula; and

(g) participated in two refresher courses or

Summer Institutes each of approximately four

weeks duration, or engaged in other

appropriate continuing education programme of

comparable quality as may be specified by the

University Grants Commission on being

sponsored by Government or Director, Higher

Education, after placement in the Senior Scale:

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 15 of 93

Provided that in respect of cases due for

consideration up to 31

st December, 1993,

Government may relax the applicability of this

provision.]‖

5.2. Provisions of the Odisha Education Service (Professors‘

Grade) Recruitment Rules, 1990

6:

―1. Short title and commencement.—

(1) These Rules may be called the Odisha Education

(Professors‘ Grade) Recruitment Rules, 1990.

(2) They shall be deemed to have come into force with

effect from the 1st day of January, 1986.

2. Definitions.—

In these Rules, unless the context otherwise

requires—

(a) COLLEGE means any Government Institution

imparting Post Graduate Education;

(b) COMMISSION means the Odisha Service

Commission;

(c) DISCIPLINE means a subject in which teaching is

imparted in a College;

(d) GOVERNMENT means the Government of Odisha;

(e) RECRUITMENT YEAR means the Calendar Year;

(f) SERVICE means the Odisha Education Service

(Professors‘ Grade).

6

In terms of Rule 1(2), the Odisha Education Service (Professors‘ G rade)

Recruitment Rules, 1990, came into force with effect from 01.01.1986.

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 16 of 93

7[(g) UNIVERSITY means the University incorporated

by or under an Act of the Central or State

Legislature.]

3. Other conditions of service not specifically provided

for in these Rules shall be such as provided in other

Statutory Rules and Orders issued from time to time

by the Government for similar class of employees.

4. Constitution of service.—

The service shall consist of the posts of Professors in

different discipline in the College or the State.

5. Recruitment to the post of Professor.—

8[(1) The post of Professor in the Service shall be

filled up by selection through the Commission

from among the eligible Readers in Government

Colleges of Odisha on merit and suitability

with due regard to seniority.]

(2) In order to be eligible for recruitment to the posts in

the service, a person shall be a scholar of eminence

in the concerned discipline and shall have the

following qualification, namely:

(a) He/she shall be a citizen of India;

(b) He/she shall have minimum of Ph.D. Degree in

the concerned discipline either from an Indian

7

Inserted with effect from 21.09.2001 by virtue of the Odisha Education Service

(Professors‘ Grade) Recruitment Amendment Rules, 2001 being published in the

Odisha Gazette, Extraordinary No.1735, dated 21.09.2001.

8

Substituted sub-rule (1) with effect from 20.07.2006 by virtue o f the Odisha

Education Service (Professors‘ Grade) Recruitment Amendment Rules, 2006

being published in the Odisha Gazette, Extraordinary No.1023, dated

20.07.2006. Prior to substitution sub-rule (1) stood thus:

“(1) The post of Professor in the service shall be filled up by dir ect

recruitment on the basis of merit through all-India advert isement

and through the selection made by the Commission. ‖

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 17 of 93

University or from a Foreign University

recognised equivalent thereto and published

research work of excellence.

9[(c) He/she shall be an eminent scholar with

published work of high quality, actively

engaged in research with ten years of

experience in Post-Graduate teaching, and/or

experience in research at the University/

National Level Institutions, including

experience of guiding research by at doctoral

level;

Provided that in exceptional cases, the

teachers with fifteen years of under Graduate

teaching/research experience shall also be

considered:

Provided further that an outstanding scholar

with established academic reputation who has

made significant to the concerned branch of

teaching or research may be considered by the

Commission eligible for appointment to the

service;

Provided also that for the purpose of selection

of a candidate to the service the Commission

shall follow the system of evaluation as

prescribed under Schedule ‗A‘ of the University

First Statutes, 1990, subject to the following:

9

Substituted clause (c) of sub-rule (2) with effect from 21.09.2001 by virtue of

the Odisha Education Service (Professors‘ Grade) Recruitment Amendment

Rules, 2001 being published in the Odisha Gazette, Extraordinary No.1735,

dated 21.09.2001. Prior to substitution clause (c) of sub-rule (2) stood thus:

―(c) He/she shall possess at least ten years‘ experience in research and/or

teaching in the concerned discipline or related area at the degree or post

graduate level in any Indian University, or a College affiliated to such

University or a Research Institution of repute or a Foreign University, and

should have guided adequate number of scholars in doctoral research.‖

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 18 of 93

(a) For Graduation Degree to marks will be

awarded for the ‗pass‘ category.

10[(aa) For Graduation Degree with

Distinction ‗two‘ marks will be awarded

irrespective of a candidate passing with

or without Honours.]

(b) Interview marks will be fifteen instead of

twenty-five.]

11[NOTE.— ***]

6. The Government, whenever the occasion to fill up the

post in a particular or different disciplines in the

service arises, shall send requisition to the

Commission to furnish the name of suitable

persons.‖

5.3. Portion of the Odisha Education Service (College Branch)

Recruitment Rules, 2020

12:

―No.8075-HE-GCET-POLlCY-0002/2020/HE. —

In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to

Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in

10

Inserted with effect from 20.07.2006 by virtue of the Odisha Educati on Service

(Professors‘ Grade) Recruitment Amendment Rules, 2006 being published in the

Odisha Gazette, Extraordinary No.1023, dated 20.07.2006.

11

Deleted with effect from 21.09.2001 by virtue of the Odisha Educat ion Service

(Professors‘ Grade) Recruitment Amendment Rules, 2001 being published in the

Odisha Gazette, Extraordinary No.1735, dated 21.09.2001. Prior to deletion

―Note‖ stood thus:

―Note.—

For the purpose of this clause ―University‖ means a University incorporated by or

under an Act of the Central or State Legislature:

Provided that an outstanding scholar with established academic reputation who

has made significant contribution to the concerned branch of teaching or research

may be considered by the Commission eligible for appointment to the service.‖

12

In terms of Rule 1(2), the Odisha Education Service (College Branch)

Recruitment Rules, 2020, came into force with effect from 18.02.2021, being

published in the Odisha Gazette, Extraordinary No.288, dated 18.02.2021.

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 19 of 93

supersession of the Odisha Education Service (College

Branch) Recruitment Rules,1990, the Odisha Education

Service (Senior Administrative Grade) Recruitment

Rules,1990 and the Odisha Education Service (Professors‘

Grade) Recruitment Rules, 1990, except as respect things

done or omitted to have done before such supersession,

the Governor of Odisha is pleased to make the following

Rules to regulate the method of recruitment and

conditions of service of the persons appointed to the

Odisha Education Service (College Branch), namely:

1. Short title and Commencement.—

(1) These Rules may be called the Odisha Education

Service (College Branch) Recruitment Rules, 2020.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their

publication in the Odisha Gazette.

2. Definitions.—

(1) In these Rules, unless the context otherwise

requires,—

(a) C OLLEGE means a Government college

imparting under graduation education or post-

graduation education or both and coming

under the administrative control of Higher

Education Department of Government of

Odisha;

(b) C OLLEGE TEACHERS means the Lecturers,

Lecturers (Senior Scale) and Readers who

shall be re-designated as Assistant Professor

(Stage-I), Assistant Professor (Stage-II),

Assistant Professor (Stage-III) respectively

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 20 of 93

and including Associate Professors and

Professors;

(c) C OMMISSION means the Odisha Public Service

Commission;

(d) C OMMITTEE means the Departmental Promotion

Committee constituted under sub-rule (1) or (2)

of Rule 14, as the case may be;

(e) F OREIGN UNIVERSITY means a University or

Institution, located outside India, with a

ranking among the top 500 in the World

University Ranking system as accepted by

UGC;

(f) G OVERNMENT means the Government of Odisha;

(g) Indian University means a University or

Institution, located in India, duly recognized by

UGC;

(h) ***

(n) S ERVICE means the Odisha Education Service

(College Branch);

(o) S UBJECT means a subject of study in which

teaching is imparted in a college;

(p) UGC means the University Grants Commission

of India;

(q) Y EAR means the Calendar Year.

(2) All other words and expressions used in these rules

but not specifically defined shall, unless the context

otherwise requires, have the same meaning as

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 21 of 93

respectively assigned to them in the Odisha Service

Code.

3. Constitution of Service and Service condition.—

(1) The service shall comprise of college teachers of

following ranks, namely:

(a) Assistant Professor (Stage-I);

(b) Assistant Professor (Stage-II);

(c) Assistant Professor (Stage-III);

(d) Associate Professor; and

(e) Professor.

(2) The Government shall be competent to appoint

college teachers of the rank of Assistant Professor

(Stage-III) and above in administrative and semi-

academic posts.

(3) All college teachers of all subjects and all

ranks shall constitute the single Odisha

Education Service (College Branch) Cadre

(herein after referred as OES (CB) Cadre) and the

number of posts in the Cadre shall be sanctioned by

the Government from time to time and the

sanctioned posts of the Cadre can be filled up by

college teachers of any rank provided that entry into

the OES (CB) Cadre, by way of direct recruitment as

per Rule 5 or placement as per Rule 8, shall be

made only in the rank of Assistant Professor (Stage-

I).

(4) The scale of pay of different ranks of college

teachers of the service and other service conditions

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 22 of 93

such as allowances, leave rules, superannuation

age, superannuation benefit, shall be determined by

the Government from time to time or shall be such as

provided in other Statutory Rules, Resolutions,

Notifications or Orders issued by the Government

from time to time for similar class of employees.

10. Promotion to the Rank of Assistant Professor (Stage

III).—

(1) To be eligible for promotion to the rank of Assistant

Professor (Stage-III), an Assistant Professor (Stage-II)

must,—

(a) have completed eight years of regular service

as Assistant Professor (Stage-II) or in

equivalent rank having equivalent scale of pay;

(b) have participated, during the assessment

period, in at least two physical or online

refresher/orientation courses, or equivalent

courses of minimum two weeks duration

recognized by the UGC.

(2) Selection for promotion shall be made as per the

select list made under Rule 17 and selected

Assistant Professors (Stage-II) shall be promoted to

the rank of Assistant Professor (Stage-II)

13[from the

date of eligibility or from the date of commencement

of these Rules, i.e., 18

th February, 2021 whichever is

later].

11. Promotion to the Rank of Associate Professor.—

13

Substituted for the words ―from the date of eligibility‖ by virtue of the Odisha

Education Service (College Branch) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2022, vide

Government of Odisha in Higher Education Department Notification

No.23352— HE-GCET-POLICY-0002-2020/HE, dated 04.06.2022.

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 23 of 93

(1) candidates of Assistant Professor (Stage-III) to be

eligible for promotion to the rank of Associate

Professor must,—

(a) have completed five years of regular service as

Assistant Professor (Stage-III), or in equivalent

rank having equivalent scale of pay;

(b) have participated, during the assessment

period, in at least two physical or online

refresher/orientation courses, or equivalent

courses, of minimum two weeks duration

recognized by the UGC.

Provided that this condition shall be relaxed till

two years from the date of publication of this

Notification in the Odisha Gazette in case of

those college teachers who otherwise become

eligible for promotion to the rank of Associate

Professor.

(2) Selection for promotion shall be made as per the

select list made under Rule 17 and the selected

Assistant Professors (Stage-III) shall be promoted to

the rank of Associate Professor

14[from the date of

eligibility or from the date of commencement of these

Rules, i.e., 18

th February, 2021 whichever is later].

12. Advance Promotion Benefit for Possessing Higher

Degree.—

14

Substituted with effect from 08.06.2022 for the words ―from the date of

eligibility‖ by virtue of the Odisha Education Service (College Branch)

Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2022, vide Government of Odisha in Higher

Education Department Notification No.23352 — HE-GCET-POLICY-0002-

2020/HE, dated 04.06.2022, being published in the Odisha Gazette,

Extraordinary No.1975, dated 08.06.2022.

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 24 of 93

(1) The minimum number of years of regular service

prescribed in sub-rule (1)(a) of Rule 9, sub-rule

(1)(a)of Rule 10 and sub-rule (1)(a) of Rule 11, as an

eligibility condition for promotion of college teachers

from one rank to another, shall be reduced by three

years if the college teacher possesses Ph.D., D.Sc. or

D.Litt. Degree, or by one year if he possesses

M.Phil., M.Litt. or Post-Graduate Degree in

Professional Courses such as LL.M., M.Tech., etc.

besides Post Graduation; from an Indian or Foreign

University in the concerned/relevant allied subject.

(2) However, if a college teacher has availed advance

promotion benefit of one year for possessing M.Phil.,

M.Litt. or PG Degree in Professional Courses as per

sub-rule (1) above and subsequently acquires Ph.D.,

D.Sc. or D.Litt. Degree; he will be entitled for availing

advance promotion benefit of only two years (not

three years) for his subsequent promotion on

account of possessing Ph.D., D.Sc. or D.Litt. Degree.

(3) Advancement of promotion under sub-rule (1) and

sub-rule (2) above shall be limited to a maximum of

3 (three) years only during one‘s entire service

period irrespective of the number of higher degrees

one may possess or acquire.

13. Promotion to the rank of Professor.—

(1) To be eligible for promotion to the rank of Professor,

an Associate Professor must,—

(a) possess a Ph.D. Degree in concerned/

relevant/allied subject from an Indian or

Foreign University.

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 25 of 93

(b) have completed five years of regular service in

the rank of Associate Professor.

(c) possess a minimum score point of 80 as per

the academic and research performance

assessment parameters given in Schedule-I

appended to these Rules:

Provided that this condition shall be relaxed in

case of college teachers on completion of twelve

years of regular service in the rank of

Associate Professor or equivalent rank having

equivalent scale of pay:

Provided further that this relaxation shall be

valid till five years from the date of publication

of this notification in the Odisha Gazette.

(2) Selection for promotion shall be made as per the

select list made under Rule 17 and selected

Associate Professors shall be promoted to the rank

of Professor from the date of their eligibility or from

the date of coming into force of these Rules,

whichever is later.

15. Procedure for Selection by the Committee.—

(1) The Committee shall meet at least once in a year,

preferably in the month of January, to prepare a list

of teachers, as are held by them, suitable for

placement to the rank of Assistant Professor (Stage-

I) or promotion to the next higher ranks.

(2) The Committee, while considering the placement or

promotion cases of suitable teachers and preparing

the list, shall follow the provisions of the Odisha

Civil Services (Criteria for Promotion) Rules, 1992.

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 26 of 93

16. Consultation with the Commission.—

(1) The recommendations of the Committee under sub-

rule (a) of Rule 14 shall be referred to the

Commission for concurrence along with a list of all

eligible candidates, including those who have not

been recommended, together with the service

particulars and their academic qualification and

experience, if any.

(2) The Commission shall consider the list along with

the service and other particulars received under sub-

rule (1) and shall furnish its recommendations to the

Government.

19. Relaxation.—

Where the State Government is of the opinion that

for the interest of public service, it is necessary and

expedient to do so, it may, by order, and for reasons

to be recorded in writing and after consultation with

the Commission, relax any of the provisions of these

rules for any person or class of persons.

20. Interpretation.—

If any question arises relating to the interpretation of

these rules, it shall be referred to the Government for

decision.‖

5.4. Re-designation of Lecturers and Readers of Universities

and Colleges of the State:

15―[No.7889–HE-FEIB-MISC-43/2016/HE.]

Higher Education Department

15

Published in the Odisha Gazette, Extraordinary No.633, dated 05.04.2016 .

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 27 of 93

Resolution

The 4

th April, 2016

Subject: Re-designation of Lecturers and Readers of

Universities and Colleges of the State.

The question of re-designation of Lecturers and Readers

of Universities and Colleges of the State was under active

consideration of Government. After careful consideration,

the State Government have been pleased to re-designate

the Lecturers and Readers of Universities and

Colleges subject to fulfilling the minimum eligibility

standard as per U.G.C. Regulation, 2010 and 2013

as follows:

Sl.

No.

Designation Existing Scale of

Pay

Re-designated as

(1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Lecturer Rs. 15600-39100/-

+ AGP- Rs. 6000/-

Assistant Professor

(Stage-I)

2 Lecturer

Sr. Scale

Rs. 15600-39100/-

+ AGP- Rs. 7000/-

Assistant Professor

(Stage-II)

3 Readers

(with less than 05 (five)

years of Service)

Rs. 15600-39100/-

+ AGP- Rs. 8000/-

Assistant

Professor

(Stage-III)

4 Readers

(with 05 (five) years

of Service)

Rs. 37400-67000/-

+ AGP- Rs. 9000/-

Associate

Professor

Promotion to Associate Professor Grade shall be subject to

fulfilment of minimum Academic Performance Index (API)

score involving research publications, research projects,

research guidance, attending national/ international

conferences etc. which shall be calculated as per UGC

Regulation, 2010 and 2013 respectively, as amended

from time to time.

The other terms and conditions of service and Career

Progression shall remain unaltered.

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 28 of 93

This has been concurred in by the Finance Department

vide their U.O.R. No.26-PCC, dated the 15th March, 2016.

ORDER

Ordered that this Resolution be published in the

Extraordinary issues of Odisha Gazette and copy

forwarded to all Departments of Government/ Accountant

General (A&E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar/Secretary to

Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource

Development (Higher Education Department), New Delhi/

Secretary, University Grants Commission, Bahadur Saha

Zafar Marg, New Delhi/ Registrars of all Universities in

the State/Principals of all Government and Non-

Government Aided Colleges.

By Order of the Governor

G.V.V. SARMA

Principal Secretary to Government ‖

Arguments advanced by the counsel representing

respective parties:

6. Sri Budhadev Routray, Sri Prafulla Kumar Rath and Sri

Subir Palit, learned Senior Advocates sought to canvas

that the learned Single Judge as if the appellants have

been seeking for promotion to the rank of ―Professor‖

from the post of ―Reader‖, later re -designated as

―Associate Professor‖ vide the Higher Education

Department Resolution No.7889 –HE-FEIB-MISC-

43/2016/HE, dated 04.04.2016, proceeded to deny the

benefit flowing from the CAS on the foundation that

―eligibility is one thing and entitlement is another‖.

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 29 of 93

6.1. The plank of argument of the learned Senior Counsel

was that the learned Single Judge maintaining parity

with co-ordinate Bench decision vide common Order

dated 27.11.2024 rendered in the case of Dr. Dhirendra

Kumar Dalai Vrs. State of Odisha and Others, W.P.(C)

No.36285 of 2021 and batch of matters tagged thereto

ought to have directed the authority concerned to

consider the claim of the appellants. Nevertheless, in

course of hearing it is pointed out that the case of Dr.

Dhirendra Kumar Dalai being considered and denied the

relief by the Government, a writ petition being W.P.(C)

No.1203 of 2025 challenging said rejection order has

been filed, which is sub judice before this Court.

6.2. Learned Senior Counsel for the respective appellants

sought to contend that,

i. the claim as made by the appellants/petitioners to

place their Scale of Pay in the rank of Associate

Professor (though they are retired in the post of

Reader) to the Scale of Pay attached to Professor

Grade under CAS is required to be considered in

terms of the ―UGC NOTIFICATION ON REVISION OF PAY

SCALES, MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF

TEACHERS IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND OTHER

MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS, 1998‖

as communicated by the UGC to the Vice-

Chancellors of all the Universities and the

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 30 of 93

Education Secretaries of all the Sates/Union

Territories vide Letter dated 24.12.1998 (for

convenience referred to as, ―UGC Notification,

1998‖), which in unequivocal terms reflects as

follows:

―1.0 These shall apply to every University

established or incorporated by or under a

Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every

institution including a constituent or an

affiliated college recognized by the

Commission, in consultation with the

concerned University under Clause (f) of

Section 2 of the University Grants Commission

Act, 1956, and every institution Deemed to be

a University under Section 3 of the said Act.

2.0 These shall come into force with immediate

effect.‖

ii. Attention is drawn to the Government of Odisha in

Department of Higher Education Resolution

No.65312— N.IPM/UN-36/99/HE, dated

31.12.1999, relevant portion of which reads thus:

―Sub.: Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum

Qualifications for the Appointment of the

Teachers in the Universities and Colleges and

other Measures for Maintenance of Standards

The State Government has decided to extend

the University Grants Commission Pay Scales

to the College Teachers and University

Teachers with effect from 01.01.1986 vide

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 31 of 93

erstwhile Education and Youth Services

Department Resolution No.44032-EYS, dated

06.10.1989 and No.44038/EYS, dated

06.10.1989.

2. The Government of India after considering the

various recommendation the U.G.C. on Revision

of Pay Scales of University and College

Teacher communicated their decision to State

Government in their Letter No.F.1-22/97/UI

dated 27.07.1998 and requested to implement

the scheme in the State after taking local

conditions into consideration, and with all

conditions to be laid down in this regard by the

U.G.C. by way of Regulations. Accordingly

U.G.C. has communicated their Notification on

―Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum

Qualifications for appointment of Teachers in

Universities and Colleges and Other Measures

for the Maintenance of Standards, 1998‖ in

their Letter No. F.3-1/94 (PS), 24.12.1998 and

requested to implement the same for

Universities and Colleges.

3. The question of Revision of Pay Scales for

University and College Teachers the basis of

the recommendations of Government of India

and the U.G.C. was under consideration of

Government for some time past. After careful

consideration the State Government has

been pleased to implement the Scheme of

Revision of Scales for University and

College Teachers with the following terms

and conditions.

***

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 32 of 93

4.9.0. Career Advancement. —

(a) Minimum length of service for eligibility to move

into the Grade of Lecturer (Senior Scale) would

be four years for those with Ph.D., five years

for those with M.Phil., and six years for others

at the level of Lecturer, and for eligibility to

move into the Grade of Lecturer (Selection

Grade)/Reader, the minimum length of service

as Lecturer (Senior Scale) shall be uniformly

five years.

(b) For movement into Grades of Reader and

above, the minimum eligibility criterion would

be Ph.D. Those without Ph.D. can go up to the

level of Lecturer (Selection Grade).

(c) A Reader with a minimum of eight years of

service in that Grade will be eligible to be

considered for appointment as a Professor.

(d) Selection Committees for Career Advancement

shall be the same as those for Direct

Recruitment for each category.‖

iii. It is asserted that the stipulation contained in the

said UGC Notification, 1998 is applicable to the

appellants, who were working as Reader (re-

designated in the year 2016 as ―Associate

Professor‖) in different Colleges of the State.

iv. Strong reliance is placed on Paragraph 7

16 of UGC

Notification, 1998, which deals with Career

16

Paragraph 7 of UGC Notification, 1998 reads thus:

―7.0.0 Career Advancement.—

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 33 of 93

Advancement of those holding the post of Reader. It

is arduously submitted that a Reader with a

minimum of eight years of service in that Grade

would be eligible to be considered for appointment

as a Professor.

v. The appellants, in the present batch of cases, have

the requisite years of service to be entitled to the

benefit of Scale of Pay of Professor Grade under

said CAS. As the Government of Odisha in Higher

Education Department implemented the UGC

Notification, 1998 by virtue of the Resolution dated

31.12.1999, the Odisha Public Service Commission

having concurred with the proposal for promotion,

seventy-six similarly situated Associate Professor or

equivalent rank are promoted to the rank of

Professor carrying Scale of Pay in Level 14 of Pay

Matrix under the Odisha Revised Scales of Pay (CT)

Rules, 2019 (corresponding to pre-revised Scale of

7.1.1. Minimum length of service for eligibility to move into the Grade of Lecturer

(Senior Scale) would be four years for those with Ph.D., five years for

those with M.Phil., and six years for others at the level of Lecturer, and for

eligibility to move into the Grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Reader, the

minimum length of service as Lecturer (Senior Scale) shall be uniformly

five years.

7.1.2. For movement into Grades of Reader and above, the minimum eligibilit y

criterion would be Ph.D. Those without Ph.D. can go up to the level of

Lecturer (Selection Grade).

7.1.3. A Reader with a minimum of eight years of service in that Grade

will be eligible to be considered for appointment as a Professor.

7.1.4. Selection Committees for Career Advancement shall be the same as thos e

for Direct Recruitment for each category.

7.1.5. The existing Scheme of Career Advancement for non-academic staff

namely Assistant Director of Physical Education, Assistant Registrar,

Assistant Librarian would continue.‖

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 34 of 93

Pay of Rs.37,400-67,000 with AGP Rs.10,000) vide

Higher Education Notification No. 39664 — HE-

GCET-MISC-0122-2021/HE, dated 30.09.2021.

vi. Such fact being derived from an information

supplied under the Right to Information Act, 2005,

it could be made known to the appellants that

there was no sanctioned post, yet seventy-six

Associate Professors were not only promoted to the

rank of Professor but also have been extended

pecuniary benefit under the CAS. It is, therefore,

forcefully submitted that the list of seventy-six

Associate Professors included retired Associate

Professors also. It is accordingly argued vehemently

that since benefit under the CAS as adopted by the

Government of Odisha has been extended in favour

of similarly situated Associate Professors by the

Higher Education Department, even after

retirement, the claim of the appellants-petitioners

in the present batch of writ petitions ought not to

have been rejected by the authorities concerned.

Doing so, smacks arbitrariness and the action of

the respondents/opposite parties is tainted with

discriminatory treatment attracting vice of Article

14 of the Constitution of India.

vii. To wind up arguments, the Senior Counsel

appearing for appellants assertively urged that it is

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 35 of 93

not the case of the appellants to place them in the

post of ―Professor‖, but it is emphatically stated

that the appellants are entitled to the benefit

envisaged under the CAS, as adopted by the

Government of Odisha in the Higher Education

Department vide Resolution dated 31.12.1999.

viii. In essence, it is fervently prayed by the appellants

that they are to be extended the benefit of

Professors‘ Grade as they fulfilled the eligibility

criteria laid down in said UGC Notification, 1998

read with Higher Education Resolution dated

31.12.1999.

7. Per contra, Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional

Government Advocate submitted that relevant facts, like

date of retirement and the events of promotion, have not

been placed either before the writ Court or are they

made available at this stage.

7.1. It does emanate from Office Order bearing No.32201—

HE-FE-II(A)-PLAN-0036/2012 (Pt)/ HE, dated

31.12.2012 issued by the Department of Higher

Education (placed at page 46 of memo of appeal) that

the appellant in W.A. No.100 of 2026 got retired with

effect from 31.05.2006 while serving as Reader in

Education, Radha Nath Institute of Advanced Studies in

Education, Kataka and completed five years of service as

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 36 of 93

on 01.01.2006. The appellants are conscious of the fact

that on that date they did not filful the eligibility criteria

of completion of eight years of service as required under

the CAS to be eligible for availing benefit of Scale of Pay

attached to Professor‘s Grade. However, the dates of

appointment and promotion to the rank of Reader were

ante-dated and the appellants were placed as such since

1994 in the year 2019 by virtue of court‘s order/

direction. After five years of such effect being given

retrospectively to the appellants‘ promotion the writ

petition relating to the instant case has been filed in the

year 2025. Unexplained delay and laches on the part of

the appellants cannot entail extension of benefit of

Professors‘ Grade Scale of Pay.

7.2. Referring to Higher Education Department Resolution

No.7889–HE-FEIB-MISC-43/2016/HE., 04.04.2016 by

dint of which the post of ―Reader‖ was re-designated, it

is submitted by Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional

Government Advocate that such re-designation is

hedged with the condition, i.e., ―subject to fulfilling the

minimum eligibility standard as per U.G.C. Regulation,

2010 and 2013‖. The appellants herein having got

retired much before U.G.C. Regulation, 2010 and 2013

came into force in place of UPG Notification, 1998, they

are not entitled to take shelter of said Resolution of

2016.

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 37 of 93

7.3. Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government

Advocate laying stress on the word ―appointment‖ as

employed at Paragraph 7.1.3 under Paragraph 7.0.0

dealing with ―Career Advancement‖ in the UGC

Notification, 1998 read with Paragraph 4.9.0 of the

Higher Education Department Resolution dated

31.12.1999 contended that they being not appointed at

any point of time as ―Professors‖, at this belated stage

much after their retirement, which events occurred way

back in the year 2006, their claim has rightly been

denied by the Commissioner- cum-Secretary to

Government vide Order dated 10.10.2025 (Annexure-

13). The decision cannot be put to question invoking

Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India; on the

contrary there is no flaw in decision making process of

the competent Government in Higher Education

Department. Such decision of the Government being

affirmed by way of reasoned Order dated 10.12.2025

passed in the writ petitions upon hearing analogously,

the view expressed by the learned Single Judge does not

warrant intervention in these intra-Court appeals.

7.4. It is forcefully submitted by Sri Saswat Das, learned

Additional Government Advocate that if the claim of the

appellants is acceded to by extending the benefit of

Professors‘ Grade, the condition enshrined in Paragraph

7.0.0 of the CAS read with Paragraph 4.9.0 in the Higher

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 38 of 93

Education Department Resolution dated 31.12.1999

dealing with ―Career Advancement‖ shall be rendered

nugatory as it is significant to notice the word

―appointment‖ employed therein. Said paragraph in

unequivocal term makes it imperative for claiming

Professors‘ Grade in tune with such Notification and

Resolution that ―A Reader with a minimum of eight years

of service in that Grade will be eligible to be considered

for appointment as a Professor ‖. There was no

occasion for the Government to consider the cases of the

appellants for the post of ―Professor‖ nor are they found

to be eligible for consideration for the said post in view of

the fact that in the year 2002 they were promoted to the

post of ―Reader‖ and they got retired in the year 2006.

Since they had no eligibility having not ―served‖ for eight

years in the Grade of Reader, they are not entitled to be

extended with the benefit of Professor Grade.

7.5. Weighty reliance has been placed by Sri Saswat Das,

learned Additional Government Advocate on State of

West Bengal Vrs. Amal Satpathi, 2024 INSC 906 and

State of U.P. Vrs. Giriraj Prasad Sharma, SLP(C)

NOS.18460-18461 of 2023, vide Order dated 06.01.2025

to canvas that promotion cannot retrospectively be

granted from a date anterior to the employee got into the

Cadre, as it would violate the precincts of Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution of India and there was no

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 39 of 93

mandate for the State to fill up the vacant posts in time-

bound manner. He would submit that notional

promotion cannot be granted on the ground of parity

that too long after retirement and in absence of

fulfilment of eligibility criteria enshrined in the

provisions of the statute/notifications/resolutions.

7.6. To sum up, Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional

Government Advocate urged that, since the appellants

having got promotion to the post of Reader in the year

2002 and got retired on attaining the age of

superannuation in the year 2006, they were not eligible

to be considered for the post of Professor on the date of

superannuation. Thus, there is no question of

consideration of Scale of Pay of Professors‘ Grade even

considering their promotion as ante-dated from the year

1994.

Analysis:

8. Having heard the counsel for the respective parties,

perused the record and gone through the Order dated

10.12.2025 of the learned Single Judge, which is

subject-matter of challenge in the present writ appeal.

8.1. Valiant attempt was made by the learned Senior Counsel

for relegating the matter to the learned Single Judge by

setting aside the order impugned for consideration of the

matter in the light of Judgment dated 27.11.2024

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 40 of 93

passed in the batch of matters being Dr. Dhirendra

Kumar Dalai Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.36285 of

2025 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

As the learned Single Judge is in seisin of the matter in

W.P.(C) No.1203 of 2023 filed by Dr. Dhirendra Kumar

Dalai, who challenged the rejection of his claim for Scale

of Pay in the Professors‘ Grade by the Government of

Odisha in Higher Education Department, it is fervently

requested for relegating these matters for

reconsideration by the learned Single Judge.

8.2. On proper scrutiny of the writ petitions, one of the

prayers made therein is as follows [extracted from

W.P.(C) No.33579 of 2025 (filed by Dr. Labangalata

Bisoi)]:

―Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other

writ/writs, direction/directions directing the opposite

parties more particularly opposite party No.1 to place the

petitioner from Associate Professor to the Scale of

Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme in terms

of the Order dated 27.11.2024 passed in W.P.(C)

No.36285 of 2021 (Dr. Dhirendra Kumar Dalai Versus

State of Odisha) under Annexure:10 ―the UGC Notification

on Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum Qualifications for

Appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges and

Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards, 1998‖

under Annexure-6 and the consequential Notification

dated 31.12.1999 (Government of Orissa Notification on

Revised U.G.C. Scales of Pay) under Annexure- 7 from the

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 41 of 93

date of completion of eight years of service as an

Associate Professor.‖

8.3. The following is the observation and direction of the

learned Single Judge in Dr. Dhirendra Kumar Dalai

Versus State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No. 36285 of 2021, vide

Order dated 27.11.2024:

―8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the

Parties and considering the submissions made, this

Court finds that the present batch of writ petitions

have been filed inter alia with the prayer to consider

the claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of the

Professor Scale of Pay under Career Advancement

Scheme. Such a claim has been made basing on the

Notification issued by the UGC on 24.12.1998 and

the acceptance of the said resolution by the

Government in the Department of Higher Education

vide resolution dated 31.12.1999.

8.1. Though it is the stand of the opposite parties that

the Notification issued by the UGC on 24.12.1998

has not been accepted by the Government as yet

and the Resolution dated 31.12.1999 is on a

different context, but this Court after going

through the benefit extended in favour of

similarly situated Associate Professors vide

Notification dated 30.09.2021 and the

information provided under RTI vide Letter

dated 19.04.2023, is of the view that benefit of

promotion to the rank of Professor has been

extended in favour of Associate Professors vide

Notification dated 30.09.2021 under the

Career Advancement Scheme .

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 42 of 93

8.2. Therefore, this Court while disposing the writ

petition, directs opposite party No.1 to consider the

claim of the present petitioners to get the benefit of

Professor Scale of Pay under Career Advancement

Scheme. It is observed that while taking such a

decision, benefit extended in favour of similarly

situated Associate Professors vide Notification

dtd.30.09.2021 and the information provided by the

Department vide letter dtd.19.04.2023 to the effect

that such benefit has been extended under Career

Advancement Scheme be taken into consideration in

its proper perspective. Opposite party No.1 is

directed to take a decision on the claim of the

Petitioners within a period of three (3) months from

the date of receipt of this order.

9. All the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.‖

8.4. In P.S. Sathappan Vrs. Andhra Bank Ltd., (2004) Suppl.5

SCR 188, it was laid down that:

―*** It is well known that a judgment is an authority for

what it decides and not what may even logically be

deduced therefrom.

***

While analysing different decisions rendered by this

Court, an attempt has been made to read the judgments

as should be read under the rule of precedents. A

decision, it is trite, should not be read as a statute.

A decision is an authority for the questions of law

determined by it. While applying the ratio, the court may

not pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment

divorced from the context in which the said question arose

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 43 of 93

for consideration. A judgment, as is well known, must be

read in its entirety and the observations made therein

should receive consideration in the light of the questions

raised before it. [See Haryana Financial Corpn. Vrs.

Jagdamba Oil Mills, (2002) 3 SCC 496, Union of India Vrs.

Dhanwanti Devi (1996) 6 SCC 44, Nalini Mahajan (Dr.)

Vrs. Director of Income Tax (Investigation), (2002) 257 ITR

123 (Del), State of U.P. Vrs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.

(1991)4 SCC 139, A-One Granites Vrs. State of U.P. (2001)

3 SCC 537, and Bhavnagar University Vrs. Palitana

Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 111].

Although decisions are galore on this point, we may refer

to a recent one in State of Gujarat Vrs. Akhil Gujarat

Pravasi V.S. Mahamandal, (2004) 5 SCC 155, wherein

this Court held:

―It is trite that any observation made during the course of

reasoning in a judgment should not be read divorced from

the context in which it was used.‖

It is further well settled that a decision is not an authority

for the proposition which did not fall for its consideration.‖

8.5. Again in Amrendra Pratap Singh Vrs. Tej Bahadur

Prajapati, (2003) Suppl. 6 SCR 42, the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court of India reiterated that:

―A judicial decision is an authority for what it actually

decides and not for what can be read into it by

implication or by assigning an assumed intention to the

judges, and inferring from it a proposition of law which

the judges have not specifically laid down in the

pronouncement.‖

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 44 of 93

8.6. Conceptual perspective as laid down by t he Hon‘ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vrs.

Arulmozhi Iniarasu, (2011) 7 SCC 397 for applying the

ratio of a decision to particular fact-situation is referred

to herein below:

―14. Before examining the first limb of the question,

formulated above, it would be instructive to note, as

a preface, the well-settled principle of law in the

matter of applying precedents that the Court should

not place reliance on decisions without discussing

as to how the fact situation of the case before it fits

in with the fact situation of the decision on which

reliance is placed. The observations of the courts are

neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as

provisions of statute and that too taken out of their

context. These observations must be read in the

context in which they appear to have been stated.

Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a

decision is not proper because one additional or

different fact may make a world of difference

between conclusions in two cases. [Ref. Bharat

Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vrs. N.R. Vairamani, (2004) 8

SCC 579; Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (KV) Vrs.

State of Maharashtra, (2008) 1 SCC 494 and

Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. Vrs. Bombay Iron &

Steel Labour Board, (2010) 2 SCC 273.‖

8.7. Be that be, in course of hearing of these matters in

appeal a photocopy of an Order dated 30.12.2024

passed by the Commissioner- cum-Secretary to

Government of Odisha, Department of Higher Education

in compliance of direction issued in the common Order

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 45 of 93

dated 27.11.2024 passed in the case of Dr. Dhirendra

Kumar Dalai, W.P.(C) No. 36285 of 2021 &c. (supra) has

been produced. Perusal of said Order it transpired that

the claim of retired Reader/Associate Professor (Dr.

Dhirendra Kumar Dalai) for his promotion from

Associate Professor to the Scale of Pay in Professor

Grade under the Career Advancement Scheme under the

UGC Notification, 1998 as adopted in the Higher

Education Department Resolution, dated 31.12.1999 in

order to extend him the pensionary benefit from the date

of his superannuation, i.e., 31.03.2020 with all

consequential service and financial benefits has been

refused.

17 At paragraph 27 of the writ appeal it has been

asserted that the challenge has been laid against said

order before this Court, which is stated to be pending in

W.P.(C) No.1203 of 2025 before the learned Single

Judge.

8.8. Under such premise, it would not be appropriate to

concede to the demand of the appellants herein that the

matter deserves to be relegated to the authority

concerned for a decision in tune with common Order

dated 27.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge passed in

the case of Dr. Dhirendra Kumar Dalai (supra), W.P.(C)

No.36285 of 2021 and batch. This Court is not called

upon to examine similarity in facts obtained in said case

17

In the present cases the appellants got retired way back in the year 2006 on

attaining age of superannuation in the post of ―Reader‖.

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 46 of 93

before the learned Single Bench with these appellants. It

is clarified that by way of these appeals under the

Letters Patent this Division Bench is required to examine

whether the decision of the learned Single Bench in the

matters at hand warrants interference.

9. What is placed for consideration in these appeals is the

common Order dated 10.12.2025 in W.P.(C) No.33579 of

2025 and batch passed by the learned Single Judge,

wherein the following observations are made:

―4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

having perused the petition papers, this Court

declines indulgence in the matter for the following

reasons:

4.1. Petitioners were the Members of Odisha Education

Service (College Branch) Cadre and therefore, they

were governed by the provisions of Odisha

Education Service (College Branch) Recruitment

Rules, 1990. These Rules did not provide for

promotion to the post of Professor at all. However,

promotion to the post of Professor was governed by

the provisions of Odisha Education Service

(Professor‘s Grade) Recruitment Rules, 1990. These

Rules provided for promotion by selection through

the Odisha Public Service Commission from among

eligible Readers, if vacancies were available. They

did not contemplate automatic promotion under the

CAS. This aspect has been in a way treated by the

impugned orders.

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 47 of 93

4.2. True it is that the benefit of CAS does not depend

upon availability of vacancies in the cadre of

Professors. The UGC Notification of 1998, whereby

CAS was promulgated, was not internalized by the

State Government Resolution dated 31.12.1999 and

therefore, the CAS does not operate proprio vigore.

Any financial benefit otherwise availing under

the CAS, cannot be claimed as a matter of

right, unless the same has been made a part of

State Policy in terms of extant Rules that

govern conditions of service of class of

employees like the petitioners . Therefore, the

repeated contention, that for claiming benefit of CAS,

vacancy in the cadre of Professors is irrelevant,

though is true, would not enure to the benefit of

petitioners.

4.3. The Government in the impugned orders has

specifically stated that these Petitioners were

superannuated long before the promulgation of the

Odisha Education Service (College Branch)

Recruitment Rules, 2020, which came into effect on

18.02.2021. The promotions granted to seventy-

six Associate Professors were under these Rules

and all they were in service. Those who had

retired before the promulgation of these Rules,

constitute a separate class that is not contemplated

under these new Rules for the grant of benefit of the

kind. Apparently, no challenge is laid to these Rules,

either. The observation of Co-ordinate Bench at

Paragraph 8.2 of the judgment that while

considering petitioners’ claim, the benefit

granted to these persons should be kept in

view, does not mean petitioners should be

treated on par with them, regardless of

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 48 of 93

apparent difference, i.e., the promulgation of

the new Rules with effect from 18.02.2021 and

superannuation of the petitioners anterior to

the same. Service Jurisprudence more than

recognizes the pensioners as a class apart qua

those who are still in service. Therefore, the

reasoning of the impugned orders cannot be faltered

on the grounds, such as equality & reasonableness.

4.4. The vehement reliance of learned Senior Advocate on

the Government Notification dated 31.12.1999

would not come to the aid of his clients. Despite

turning its pages, it is not demonstrated that this

Notification internalizes Paragraph 7.1.3 of the CAS,

which reads as under:

―A Reader with a minimum of eight years of

service in that Grade will be eligible to be

considered for appointment as a Professor.‖

The text of the above provision only speaks of

eligibility to be considered for appointment as a

Professor and not as to entitlement for such

appointment. Eligibility is one thing and entitlement

is another. If the CAS 1998 intended entitlement, in

its wisdom it would have employed the very same

word. To put it metaphorically, eligibility is the

starting point of the journey, whereas entitlement is

the destination point.

In the above circumstances, these petitions being

devoid of merits are liable to be rejected, and

accordingly they are, costs having been made easy.‖

9.1. Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government

Advocate made a suave submission by stating that

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 49 of 93

promotion is not a matter of right and though

consideration for promotion is a right provided the

eligibility criteria are fulfilled. It is also submitted that it

is not obligatory on the part of the employer to fill up all

the vacancies even if it did exist in the Professor post.

9.2. Though the pleadings are silent about the date of

superannuation except Annexure-2 series enclosed with

the writ appeal, i.e., Office Order dated 31.12.2012

wherefrom it is apparent that the appellant in W.A.

No.100 of 2026 was retired on 31.05.2006. From

Paragraph 4 of all the writ appeals it could be

ascertained that while Dr. Labangalata Bisoi got

promoted to the post of Reader with effect from

11.04.1994, Dr. Uma Chand Lal got said promotional

post with effect from 14.11.1996 whereas Dr. Rama

Nath Acharya with effect from 25.10.1994.

9.3. On behalf of the respondents it is argued that the UGC

Notification of 1998 is no more in vogue; which is

manifest from the decision in Kalyani Mathiavanan Vrs.

K.V. Jeyaraj, (2015) 6 SCC 363, wherein the following are

the observations:

―62. In view of the discussion as made above, we hold:

62.1. To the extent the State legislation is in conflict with

the Central legislation including subordinate

legislation made by the Central legislation under

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 50 of 93

Entry 25 of the Concurrent List shall be repugnant to

the Central legislation and would be inoperative.

62.2. The UGC Regulations being passed by both the

Houses of Parliament, though a subordinate

legislation has binding effect on the universities to

which it applies.

62.3. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory to

teachers and other academic staff in all the Central

universities and colleges thereunder and the

institutions deemed to be universities whose

maintenance expenditure is met by UGC.

62.4. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory for the

universities, colleges and other higher educational

institutions under the purview of the State

legislation as the matter has been left to the State

Government to adopt and implement the Scheme.

Thus, the UGC Regulations, 2010 are partly

mandatory and is partly directory.

62.5. The UGC Regulations, 2010 having not been

adopted by the State of Tamil Nadu, the question of

conflict between the State legislation and the

Statutes framed under the Central legislation does

not arise. Once they are adopted by the State

Government, the State legislation to be amended

appropriately. In such case also there shall be no

conflict between the State legislation and the Central

legislation.‖

9.4. Such fact is neither argued nor did it fall for

consideration before the learned Single Judge.

Nonetheless, Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 51 of 93

Government Advocate explained that initially these

appellants were given promotion to the post of Reader in

the year 2002, but by virtue of direction of this Court in

writ petition(s), the date of effect of promotion was ante-

dated. Since they got retired in the year 2006 (no date of

superannuation has been disclosed by the appellants in

W.A. Nos.106 and 107 of 2026), computing the period of

eligibility enshrined in the UGC Notification, 1998 read

with the Higher Education Department Resolution,

dated 31.12.1999, the appellants did not get promoted

to the post of Professor as they did not complete eight

years service in the post of Reader.

9.5. In this respect reliance is placed by Sri Saswat Das,

learned Additional Government Advocate, on State of

West Bengal Vrs. Dr. Amal Satpathi, 2024 INSC 906

18,

disposed of vide Judgment dated 27.11.2024, wherein it

is observed that:

―5. Aggrieved by the denial of the benefits flowing from

promotion, respondent No. 1 approached the

Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 555 of 2017. ***

6. The appellants challenged this order before the High

Court in WPST No. 157 of 2019. The High Court, vide

judgment dated 1

st February, 2023 dismissed the

writ petition, concurring with the Tribunal that

retrospective promotion was impermissible but

noting that notional financial benefits were

18

Reported at 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 52 of 93

justified given that no fault can be attributed

to respondent No. 1. Aggrieved, the State has

preferred this appeal by special leave.

***

8. He further submitted that service jurisprudence does

not recognize retrospective promotion without a

specific enabling provision, therefore, notional

promotion cannot be granted retrospectively unless

there exists a specific rule or exceptional

circumstances. In the present case, Rule 54(1)(a)

of the West Bengal Service Rules, precludes

retrospective promotion.

9. Learned counsel further submitted that the final

approval for the Chief Scientific Officer position was

granted on 4th January, 2017, after the

respondent’s superannuation on 31st

December, 2016, thus, the promotion could not

be effected during his service tenure and

therefore, in the absence of any specific rule

permitting retrospective promotion, the

effective date of promotion should be the date

on which it is granted, not the date of the

vacancy.

***

12. E-converso, learned counsel for respondent

No.1 submitted that respondent No.1 had been

serving as Principal Scientific Officer since

24th March, 2008, and could have been

promoted to Chief Scientific Officer as early as

in the year 2013, had the Department

submitted a timely proposal to fill up the

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 53 of 93

vacancy. It was submitted that the Department

failed to timely provide the confidential reports and

other details of respondent No.1 to the PSC by 13th

April, 2016, as required under the Rules. This

inaction, for reasons best known to the officials

concerned, led to a significant delay in the promotion

process and thus, respondent No.1 was deprived of

this rightful claim to the fruits of promotion from the

date of occurrence of vacancy as per his entitlement.

***

15. The primary question that arises for our

consideration in the present appeal is whether

respondent No.1, who was recommended for the

promotion before his retirement but did not receive

actual promotion to the higher post due to

administrative delays, is entitled to notional

financial benefits of the promotional post after his

retirement?

***

17. The relevant provision i.e., Rule 54(1)(a) of the West

Bengal Service Rules, is extracted hereinbelow for

the sake of ready reference:

―Pay on Officiating Appointment.— 54(1)(a):

Subject to the provisions of Chapter VII, a

Government employee who is appointed to officiate

in a post shall not draw pay higher than* “his

substantive pay” in respect of a permanent

post, other than a tenure post, unless the

officiating appointment involves the

assumption of duties and responsibilities of

greater importance than those attaching to the

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 54 of 93

post, other than a tenure post, on which he

holds a lien, or would hold a lien had it not

been suspended:

Provided that the Governor may specify posts

outside the ordinary line of a service the holders of

which may, notwithstanding the provisions of this

rule and subject to such conditions as the Governor

may prescribe, be given any officiating promotion in

the cadre of the service which the authority

competent to order promotion may decide, and may

thereupon be granted the same pay as they would

have received if still in the ordinary line.‖ (emphasis

supplied)

18. Upon a bare perusal of Rule 54(1)(a) of the West

Bengal Service Rules, it is clear that promotion

cannot be retrospectively granted after retirement,

as it requires the actual assumption of duties and

responsibilities of the promotional post. In the

present case, since respondent No. 1 superannuated

before the final approval of his promotion, he could

not have formally assume the charge of the

promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer.

Therefore, although respondent No. 1 was

recommended for promotion, Rule 54(1)(a) of the

West Bengal Service Rules precludes him from

getting the financial benefits of the promotional post

without having taken on the responsibilities of the

said post, i.e., Chief Scientific Officer.

19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes

effective from the date it is granted, rather than from

the date a vacancy arises or the post is created.

While the Courts have recognized the right to be

considered for promotion as not only a statutory

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 55 of 93

right but also a fundamental right, there is no

fundamental right to the promotion itself. ***

20. In the instant case, it is evident that while

respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion

before his retirement, he could not assume the

duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54(1)(a) of

the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly

stipulates that an employee must assume the

responsibilities of a higher post to draw the

corresponding pay, thus, preventing

posthumous or retrospective promotions in the

absence of an enabling provision.

21. While we recognize respondent No.1‘s right to be

considered for promotion, which is a fundamental

right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution

of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the

promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed

above establish that promotion only becomes

effective upon the assumption of duties on the

promotional post and not on the date of

occurrence of the vacancy or the date of

recommendation. Considering that respondent No.

1 superannuated before his promotion was

effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective

financial benefits associated to the promotional post

of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that

capacity.‖

9.6. It is the stance of Sri Budhadev Routray, learned Senior

Advocate that the appellants/petitioners do not claim

retrospective promotion in the post of Professor, rather

they claim the benefit of Professors‘ Grade Scale of Pay

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 56 of 93

as they have completed eight years of service as Reader

computing since 1994 as retrospective promotion to the

said post was accorded to them by virtue of direction of

this Court in the year 2019. Quod ultra, it is the

statement of the learned Additional Government

Advocate that the post of Reader has been re-

designation as ―Associate Professor‖ ―subject to fulfilling

the minimum eligibility standard as per U.G.C.

Regulation, 2010 and 2013 ‖, as the appellants got

retired in the year 2006 before the amended Regulation

came into force, the stand taken by the appellants

cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. It is not the case of

the appellants that they are eligible to claim the benefit

under Regulations, 2010 and 2013. This apart, the

appellants having not fulfilled eligibility criteria for

promotion to the post of ―Professor‖ postulated under

Rule 5 of the Professors‘ Grade Rules as it stood prior to

their retirement, the contention of Sri Budhadev

Routray, learned Senior Advocate does not stand to

reason.

9.7. What is perceived is that the appellants were promoted

to the post of ―Reader‖ (though re-designated as

―Associate Professor‖ by virtue of Resolution No.7889–

HE-FEIB-MISC-43/2016/HE, dated 04.04.2016 issued

by the Higher Education Department) ante-dating the

date of effect, but on the basis of undisputed oral

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 57 of 93

submission made at the Bar it came to light that

actually they worked in the said post in the year 2002.

This Court, therefore, does not find force in the

submission of the appellants. The following observation

made in the case of Government of West Bengal Vrs. Dr.

Amal Satpathi, 2024 INSC 906 = 2024 SCC OnLine SC

3512 may fruitfully be referred to:

―19. It is a well settled principle that promotion

becomes effective from the date it is granted,

rather than from the date a vacancy arises or

the post is created. While the Courts have

recognized the right to be considered for promotion

as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental

right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion

itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a

recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar

State Electricity Board and Others Vrs. Dharamdeo

Das, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768, wherein it was

observed as follows:

‗18. It is no longer res integra that a

promotion is effective from the date it is

granted and not from the date when a

vacancy occurs on the subject post or

when the post itself is created. No doubt,

a right to be considered for promotion has

been treated by courts not just as a

statutory right but as a fundamental

right, at the same time, there is no

fundamental right to promotion itself. In

this context, we may profitably cite a recent

decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla Vrs. Arvind Rai,

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 58 of 93

(2022) 12 SCC 579 where, citing earlier

precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation

Corporation Ltd. Vrs. Pravat Kiran Mohanty,

(1991) 2 SCC 295 and Ajit Singh Vrs. State of

Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209, a three-Judge

Bench observed thus:

‗41. This Court, time and again, has laid

emphasis on right to be considered for

promotion to be a fundamental right, as

was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in

Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. Vrs.

Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the

report which is reproduced below:

‗4. *** There is no fundamental right to

promotion, but an employee has

only right to be considered for

promotion, when it arises, in

accordance with relevant rules.

From this perspective in our view the

conclusion of the High Court that the

gradation list prepared by the

corporation is in violation of the right

of respondent-writ petitioner to

equality enshrined under Article 14

read with Article 16 of the

Constitution, and the respondent-

writ petitioner was unjustly denied

of the same is obviously unjustified.‘

42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh Vrs.

State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209, laying

emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1)

of the Constitution of India held that if a

person who satisfies the eligibility and

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 59 of 93

the criteria for promotion but still is not

considered for promotion, then there will

be clear violation of his/her‘s

fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J.

speaking for himself and Anand, C.J.,

Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ.,

observed the same as follows in paras 22

and 27:

‗22. Articles 14 and 16(1): is right to be

considered for promotion a

fundamental right? Article 14 and

Article 16(1) are closely connected.

They deal with individual rights of

the person. Article 14 demands that

the ‗State shall not deny to any

person equality before the law or the

equal protection of the laws‘. Article

16(1) issues a positive command

that:

‗there shall be equality of

opportunity for all citizens in matters

relating to employment or

appointment to any office under the

State‘.

It has been held repeatedly by this

Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is

a facet of Article 14 and that it takes

its roots from Article 14. The said

clause particularises the generality

in Article 14 and identifies, in a

constitutional sense ―equality of

opportunity‖ in matters of

employment and appointment to any

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 60 of 93

office under the State. The word

―employment‖ being wider, there is

no dispute that it takes within its

fold, the aspect of promotions to

posts above the stage of initial level

of recruitment. Article 16(1) provides

to every employee otherwise eligible

for promotion or who comes within

the zone of consideration, a

fundamental right to be

―considered‖ for promotion. Equal

opportunity here means the right to

be ―considered‖ for promotion. If a

person satisfies the eligibility and

zone criteria but is not considered

for promotion, then there will be a

clear infraction of his fundamental

right to be ―considered‖ for

promotion, which is his personal

right. ―Promotion‖ based on equal

opportunity and seniority attached

to such promotion are facets of

fundamental right under Article

16(1).

***

27. In our opinion, the above view

expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta

[Ashok Kumar Gupta Vrs. State of

U.P., (1997) 5 SCC 201, and

followed in Jagdish Lal Vrs. State of

Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538, and

other cases, if it is intended to lay

down that the right guaranteed to

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 61 of 93

employees for being ―considered‖ for

promotion according to relevant

rules of recruitment by promotion

(i.e. whether on the basis of

seniority or merit) is only a statutory

right and not a fundamental right,

we cannot accept the proposition.

We have already stated earlier that

the right to equal opportunity in the

matter of promotion in the sense of a

right to be ―considered‖ for

promotion is indeed a fundamental

right guaranteed under Article 16(1)

and this has never been doubted in

any other case before Ashok Kumar

Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta Vrs.

State of U.P.], right from 1950.‘

***

20. In State of Bihar Vrs. Akhouri Sachindra Nath,

1991 Supp.1 SCC 334, it was held that

retrospective seniority cannot be given to an

employee from a date when he was not even

borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given

with retrospective effect as that might

adversely affect others. The same view was

reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi Vrs. Union

of India, 1992 Supp.1 SCC 272, where it was

held that when a quota is provided for, then

the seniority of the employee would be

reckoned from the date when the vacancy

arises in the quota and not from any anterior

date of promotion or subsequent date of

confirmation. The said view was restated in

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 62 of 93

Uttaranchal Forest Rangers‘ Assn. (Direct

Recruit) Vrs. State of U.P., (2006) 10 SCC 346,

in the following words:

‗37. We are also of the view that no

retrospective promotion or seniority can

be granted from a date when an

employee has not even been borne in the

cadre so as to adversely affect the direct

recruits appointed validly in the

meantime, as decided by this Court in

Keshav Chandra Joshi Vrs. Union of

India held that when promotion is outside

the quota, seniority would be reckoned

from the date of the vacancy within the

quota rendering the previous service

fortuitous. The previous promotion would

be regular only from the date of the

vacancy within the quota and seniority

shall be counted from that date and not

from the date of his earlier promotion or

subsequent confirmation. In order to do

justice to the promotes, it would not be

proper to do injustice to the direct recruits.

***

38. This Court has consistently held that

no retrospective promotion can be

granted nor can any seniority be

given on retrospective basis from a

date when an employee has not even

been borne in the cadre particularly

when this would adversely affect the

direct recruits who have been

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 63 of 93

appointed validity in the meantime.

(emphasis supplied)‘ ***‖

9.8. It would not be out of place to have regard to the

following legal perspective as enunciated by the Hon‘ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Haryana State

Electricity Board Vrs. Gulshan Lal, (2009) 8 SCR 950:

―7. Whereas Anil Kapoor was in the grade of Senior

Technician, Gulshan Lal and Kashmir Singh were in

the Technician Grade I. The said suits were decreed,

subject to the decision of the aforementioned RSA

No. 800 of 1992.

8. On or about 13.01.1986, for the purpose of

implementing the staffing pattern vis-a-vis

recruitment and promotion policy for thermal power

plants of the Board, inter alia a decision was taken

to re-designate the regular technical posts in the

thermal organization of Faridabad with effect from

15.01.1986 in the respective trades; the relevant

entries thereof are as under:

***

28. Submission of Mr. Salman Khurshid that the right to

obtain same remuneration would carry with it the

designation also is not correct. Promotion to a

higher post cannot be claimed as a matter of

right. Before a person claims promotion, subject of

course to just exceptions, the prevailing rules must

be followed. If the employee concerned while

working in a particular grade does not acquire

experience of working therein, he cannot be

promoted to the next higher grade although

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 64 of 93

experience in the immediately below post forms

part of an essential qualification. A person,

thus, who is ineligible to hold the post cannot be

directed to be promoted thereto only on the ground of

so called equality doctrine or otherwise.

29. We have noticed hereinbefore that even in Kashmir

Singh‘s case, the High Court committed a serious

illegality in treating the Senior Technicians and

Technicians together. Similar reliefs were granted to

both the categories of employees which was

impermissible.

30. The basis on which the other judgments were

passed, viz., the decision of the High Court in the

second appeal is subject matter of one of the SLPs.

The Trial Judge following the case of Anil Kapoor

and Kashmir Singh had evidently not only directed

grant of scale of pay but also an additional relief,

viz., designation. It was also, in our opinion, wholly

impermissible in law.

31. It is one thing to say that having regard to the

provisions contained in Article 39(d) of the

Constitution of India read with Article 14

thereof, a court invokes the doctrine of equal

pay for equal work but the same would not

mean that a person is not only granted the

same relief but also granted a higher status to

which he was not otherwise entitled to.‖

9.9. A cue from the following observation contained in Union

of India Vrs. B.M. Jha, (2007) 11 SCC 632 may be

relevant in the present context:

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 65 of 93

―We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It was

argued by learned counsel for the respondent that when a

retrospective promotion is given to an incumbent normally

he is entitled to all benefits flowing therefrom. However,

this Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vrs. D.P.

Gupta & Ors., (1996) 7 SCC 533 and followed in the case

of A.K Soumini Vrs. State Bank of Travancore, JT (2003) 8

SC 35 has taken the view that even in case of a notional

promotion from retrospective date, it cannot entitle the

employee to arrears of salary as the incumbent has

not worked in the promotional post. These decisions

relied on the principle of no work no pay. The

learned Division Bench in the impugned judgment has

placed reliance on the case of State of Andhra Pradesh

Vrs. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao & Ors., (1999) 3 SC 205. In

our view, the High Court did not examine that case in

detail. In fact, in the said judgment the view taken by the

High Court of grant of salary was set aside by this Court.

Therefore, we are of the view that in the light of the

consistent view taken by this Court in the

abovementioned cases, arrears of salary cannot be

granted to the respondent in view of the principle of

no work no pay in case of retrospective promotion.

Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the

impugned order of the High Court dated 17.05.2000

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as also

the order dated 11.01.2000 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench.‖

9.10. On the date of retirement of the appellant in the year

2006 since provisions of Rule 5 of the Professors‘ Grade

Rules, 1990 was not in pari materia compared to the

provisions introduced by way of amendment that is

brought into force with effect from 20.07.2006, the claim

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 66 of 93

of the appellant(s) is not tenable as negative equalities is

not conceived of under Article 14 of the Constitution of

India.

10. The last limb of argument advanced by the learned

Senior Counsel appearing for respective appellants is

parity of treatment with those seventy-six Associate

Professors who were accorded promotion to the post of

Professor after supersession of the Odisha Education

Service (College Branch) Recruitment Rules,1990, the

Odisha Education Service (Senior Administrative Grade)

Recruitment Rules,1990 and the Odisha Education

Service (Professors‘ Grade) Recruitment Rules, 1990 by

virtue of the Odisha Education Service (College Branch)

Recruitment Rules, 2020 vide Department of Higher

Education Notification bearing No.39664— HE-GCET-

MISC-0122-2021/HE, dated 30.09.2021. It is submitted

that the action of the authorities is arbitrary and

discriminatory in granting promotion to the seventy-six

numbers of Odisha Education Service (College Branch)

Cadre Teachers of Associate Professors or equivalent

rank to the rank of Professor carrying Scale of Pay in

Level-14 of the Pay Matrix under the Odisha Revised

Scales of Pay (CT) Rules, 2019.

10.1. Refuting the contention of the learned Additional

Government Advocate that the eligible Associate

Professors were given the benefit in the rank of

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 67 of 93

Professor, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for

appellant(s) submitted that the list enclosed to aforesaid

Higher Education Department Notification dated

30.09.2021 would reveal that certain Associate

Professors are given the promotional post of ―Professor‖

after their retirement. Nothing has been placed by the

appellants/petitioners to suggest that their retirement

was within close proximity of date of their respective

retirement vis-à-vis eligibility criteria that prevailed on

the date of retirement. The circumstance and factual

considerations under which such grant has been

extended to these seventy-six Associate Professors is not

put forth before this Court.

10.2. Scrutiny of Annexure-A appended to said Notification

goes to depict that it is a ―List of Associate

Professor/equivalent rank OES Teachers fulfilling the

minimum score point of 80 (as per parameters given in

Schedule-I of 2020 Recruitment Rules‖ . Annexure-B

thereto discloses that it is a ―List of Associate

Professors/equivalent rank OES Teachers completing 12

years before …‖ (illegible copy furnished by the

appellants). These annexures are clear indicators of the

fact that the Government of Odisha has considered the

eligibility criteria of Associate Professors for the post of

―Professor‖. Nonetheless, the appellants ha ve not

demonstrated that the retirement of such Associate

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 68 of 93

Professors (―Reader‖ is re-designated as ―Associate

Professor‖ in the year 2016) were prior to coming into

force of the Odisha Education Service (Professors‘ Grade)

Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2006.

10.3. It could not be ascertained upon minute examination of

the recitals in the columns against each of the Associate

Professors appearing in the lists at Annexures-A and B

appended to said Notification dated 30.09.2021 that the

benefit given to the retired Associate Professors as

reflected therein is in consideration whether they got

retired before or after 2006. The appellants, who got

retired before the Odisha Education Service (Professors

Grade) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2006 came into

force, have placed no material to suggest that they are

similarly situated with those Associate Professors in the

lists. It is not clarified by the appellants whether the

Readers, which post was re-designated as Associate

Professors in the year 2016, got the ―appointment‖ to the

post of Professor after the date of retirement on

superannuation prior to 2016. This Court is made to

understand that the appellants/petitioners having

reached the age of superannuation got retired in the

year 2006. Therefore, the employee and employer

relationship came to an end. This Court cannot remain

oblivious that notional promotion may be considered by

the Courts only if a junior employee has been promoted

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 69 of 93

in violation of the relevant Rules, not merely due to the

availability of a vacancy. The mere existence of vacancy

does not justify granting notional promotion, as the

filling of such posts is the prerogative of the

administration and cannot be claimed as matter of right

by the employee. Therefore, there was no scope to

consider their case for promotion so far as eligibility

criteria are concerned on the basis of amendment to

Rule 5 of the Professors‘ Grade Recruitment Rules, 1990

with effect from 20.07.2006. Whereas Rule 5 as it

existed on the date of retirement of the appellants in the

year 2006 (as seen from the Office Order dated

31.12.2012 issued by the Department of Higher

Education enclosed with W.A. No.100 of 2026 specifying

the date of retirement as 31.05.2006, i.e., prior to

20.07.2006) envisaged filling up of the post of Professor

by way of ―direct recruitment on the basis of merit‖, the

claim of the appellants for grant of Professors‘ Grade Pay

Scale is, thus, fallacious.

10.4. This takes the Court to have regard to the following

observations made in State of Odisha Vrs. Anup Kumar

Senapati, (2019) 12 SCR 472:

―In Kulwinder Pal Singh and another Vrs. State of Punjab

and others, (2016) 6 SCC 532, this Court while relying

upon State of U.P. Vrs. Rajkumar Sharma, (2006) 3 SCC

330, observed as under:

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 70 of 93

‗16. The learned counsel for the appellants contended

that when the other candidates were appointed in

the post against dereserved category, the same

benefit should also be extended to the appellants.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not to

perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage

negative equalities. In-State of U.P. Vrs. Rajkumar

Sharma, (2006) 3 SCC 330 it was held as under

(SCC p. 337, para 15)

‗15. Even if in some cases appointments have been

made by mistake or wrongly, that does not

confer any right on another person. Article 14

of the Constitution does not envisage negative

equality, and if the State committed the

mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the

same mistake. (See Sneh Prabha Vrs. State of

U.P, (1996) 7 SCC 426; Jaipur Development

Authority Vrs. Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC

35; State of Haryana Vrs. Ram Kumar Mann,

(1997) 3 SCC 321; Faridabad CT Scan Centre

Vrs. DG, Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752;

Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vrs. Sampuran

Singh, (1999) 3 SCC 494; State of Punjab Vrs.

Rajeev Sarwal, (1999) 9 SCC 240; Yogesh

Kumar Vrs. Government (NCT of Delhi), (2003)

3 SCC 548; Union of India Vrs. International

Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437 and Kastha

Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha

Maryadit Vrs. Indore Development Authority,

(2006) 2 SCC 604.)‘

Merely because some persons have been granted

benefit illegally or by mistake, it does not confer

right upon the appellants to claim equality.‘

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 71 of 93

In Arup Das and others Vrs. State of Assam and others,

(2012) 5 SCC 559, this Court observed as under:

‗19. In a recent decision rendered by this Court in State

of U.P. Vrs. Rajkumar Sharma, (2006) 3 SCC 330,

this Court once again had to consider the question of

filling up of vacancies over and above the number of

vacancies advertised. Referring to the various

decisions rendered on this issue, this Court held that

filling up of vacancies over and above the number of

vacancies advertised would be violative of the

fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution and that selectees could

not claim appointments as a matter of right. It was

reiterated that mere inclusion of candidates in

the select list does not confer any right to be

selected, even if some of the vacancies

remained unfilled. This Court went on to observe

further that even if in some cases appointments had

been made by mistake or wrongly, that did not

confer any right of appointment to another person,

as Article 14 of the Constitution does not

envisage negative equality and if the State had

committed a mistake, it cannot be forced to

perpetuate the said mistake.‘

In State of Orissa and another Vrs. Mamata

Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, it was observed:

‗56. It is a settled legal proposition that

Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate

illegality and it does not envisage

negative equality. Thus, even if some other

similarly situated persons have been

granted some benefit inadvertently or by

mistake, such order does not confer any

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 72 of 93

legal right on the petitioner to get the

same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. Vrs.

Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745, Yogesh Kumar

Vrs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2003) 3 SCC 548,

Anand Buttons Ltd. Vrs. State of Haryana,

(2005) 9 SCC 164, K.K. Bhalla Vrs. State of

M.P., (2006) 3 SCC 581, Krishan Bhatt Vrs.

State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 24, State of Bihar

Vrs. Upendra Narayan Singh, (2009) 5 SCC 65

and Union of India Vrs. Kartick Chandra

Mondal, (2010) 2 SCC 422).‖

10.5. Upon diligent reading of the impugned order it

transpires from the following reason ascribed by the

learned Single Judge that the contention of parity of

treatment of the appellants with the Readers/Associate

Professors out of the seventy-six Readers/Associate

Professors having been accorded with the Professors‘

Grade after their retirement has been dispelled:

―The promotions granted to seventy-six Associate

Professors were under these Rules and all they were in

service. Those who had retired before the promulgation of

these Rules, constitute a separate class that is not

contemplated under these new Rules for the grant of

benefit of the kind. Apparently, no challenge is laid to

these Rules, either. The observation of Co-ordinate

Bench at Paragraph 8.2 of the judgment that while

considering petitioners’ claim, the benefit granted

to these persons should be kept in view, does not

mean petitioners should be treated on par with

them, regardless of apparent difference, i.e., the

promulgation of the new Rules with effect from

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 73 of 93

18.02.2021 and superannuation of the petitioners

anterior to the same. Service Jurisprudence more than

recognizes the pensioners as a class apart qua those who

are still in service. Therefore, the reasoning of the

impugned orders cannot be faltered on the grounds, such

as equality & reasonableness.‖

10.6. A view so expressed by the learned Single Judge does

not deserve to be varied by the Division Bench in

exercise of power under the Letters Patent, if at all

another view can be possible. Paucity of material fact

being placed by the appellants/petitioners, as narrated

above, does not warrant contrary view need to be taken

than what was expressed by the learned Single Judge.

No perversity being found in the common Order dated

10.12.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.33579 of 2025, W.P.(C)

No.33628 of 2025 and W.P.(C) No.33720 of 2025 this

Court declines to show indulgence in the decision taken

by the learned Single Judge.

Conclusion:

11. It remained undisputed by the learned Senior Counsel

for the appellants against the fact asserted by the

learned Additional Government Advocate that the

appellants have never actually functioned as Professors,

obviously for not having eligibility as per Rule 5(1) of the

Professors Grade Recruitment Rules, 1990 as it existed

prior to the date of retirement, and their promotion to

the post of Reader was ante-dated to be reckoned from

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 74 of 93

1994 (as promotion to the post of Reader was ante-dated

in compliance of direction of this Court in certain writ

petitions), but they actually worked in the said post

since 2002. With the above discussed legal perspective

in mind and the factual position obtained as

adumbrated in the pleadings, it can safely be said that

the condition of ―eight years in service‖ stipulated in

Paragraph 7.1.3 under the Heading ―Career

Advancement‖ of the UGC Notification, 1998 read with

Paragraph 4.9.0: Career Advancement of Higher

Education Department Resolution dated 31.12.1999 has

not been fulfilled.

11.1. Sri Subir Palit, learned Senior Advocate cited a

Judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India

rendered in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vrs. State

of Gujarat, (2022) 5 SCC 179 to contend that if the Rules

framed by the State is contrary to the UGC Regulation,

the former legislation would yield to the latter. He

referred to Paragraph 50 of said Judgment is runs as

follows:

―50. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are

enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under

Sections 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956.

Even as per the UGC Act every rule and regulation

made under the said Act, shall be laid before each

House of Parliament. Therefore, being a subordinate

legislation, UGC Regulations becomes part of the

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 75 of 93

Act. In case of any conflict between the State

legislation and the Central legislation, Central

legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/

principle of repugnancy as enunciated in

Article 254 of the Constitution as the subject

“education” is in the Concurrent List (List III) of

the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.

Therefore, any appointment as a Vice-Chancellor

contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations

can be said to be in violation of the statutory

provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto.‖

11.2. There is no two opinions about such proposition, yet the

Additional Government Advocate would submit that the

said reported case was concerning selection of Vice-

Chancellor. In the instant case as on the date of

retirement of the appellant the State Government/

University did not change/modify either the Odisha

Education Service (Professors‘ Grade) Recruitment

Rules, 1990 or the Odisha Education Service (College

Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 in tune with the UGC

Notification on Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum

Qualification for Appointments of Teachers in

Universities, Colleges and Other Measures for the

Maintenance of Standards, 1998 as adopted by the State

Government by Resolution dated 31.12.1999. He

submitted that in the above reported Judgment in the

case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra) the Hon‘ble

Supreme Court of India was considering the recitals

contained in the UGC Regulations, 2010 which specified

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 76 of 93

that the Universities and State Government would

modify or amend the relevant Acts and Statutes. He

drew attention to Paragraph 25 of said Judgment which

reads thus:

―25. Regulation 7.4.0 mandates that the universities/

State Governments shall modify or amend the

relevant Acts/Statutes of the universities concerned

within six months of adoption of these Regulations.‖

11.3. The Senior Advocate(s) could not throw light on such

requirement of amendment/change in the Odisha

Education Service (Professors‘ Grade) Recruitment

Rules, 1990 or the Odisha Education Service (College

Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 with reference to the

UGC Notification on Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum

Qualification for Appointments of Teachers in

Universities, Colleges and Other Measures for the

Maintenance of Standards, 1998 as adopted by the State

Government by Resolution dated 31.12.1999.

11.4. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate

laid emphasis on the word ―appointment‖ employed in

Paragraph 7.0.0 (particularly 7.1.3) of the UGC

Notification, 1998 (CAS) read with 4.9.0 of the Higher

Education Department Resolution, dated 31.12.1999.

Presence of said word has much significance. The

appellant(s) in the post of ―Reader‖ during his/her

service tenure was never ―considered for appointment as

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 77 of 93

a Professor‖. Hence, the claim has been rejected with

justification. At Paragraph 4 of the instant writ appeals

the appellants in W.A. Nos.100, 106 and 107 of 2026

simply stated that they were promoted to the post of

Reader from Lecturer (Senior Scale) with effect from

11.04.1994, 14.11.1996 and 25.10.1994 respectively

without bringing on record the circumstances which

prevailed for ante-dating the promotion, though they

actually got promoted to the said post of Reader in the

year 2002, as contended by the learned Additional

Government Advocate. However, much after the

retirement of these appellants said post of Reader has

been re-designated as Associate Professor by Higher

Education Department Resolution No.7889 –HE-FEIB-

MISC-43/2016/HE, dated 04.04.2016.

11.5. It is sought to be canvassed by Sri Prafulla Kumar Rath,

learned Senior Advocate that in Rule 5(1) of the Odisha

Education Service (Professors‘ Grade) Recruitment

Rules, 1990 it has been specified by virtue of

amendment in the Professors‘ Grade Recruitment Rules

in the year 2006, that ―the post of Professor in the Service

shall be filled up by selection through the Commission

from among the eligible Readers in Government Colleges

of Odisha on merit and suitability with due regard to

seniority‖. Therefore, he would submit that the appellant

in W.A. No.100 of 2026 has the eligibility for being

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 78 of 93

considered for the post of ―Professor‖, as he was

promoted to the post of ―Reader‖ with effect from

11.04.1994 and retired on 31.05.2006. Having eight

years of service in the Reader Grade, in view of sub-rule

(1) of Rule 5 of the Professors‘ Grade Rules as amended

with effect from 20.07.2006 relief claimed ought to have

been extended by the respondents.

11.6. To dispel such contention Sri Saswat Das, learned

Additional Government Advocate would submit that said

provision in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Professors‘

Grade Rules was amended by virtue of the Odisha

Education Service (Professors‘ Grade) Recruitment

Amendment Rules, 2006 with effect from 20.07.2006. By

the time such amendment came to force, the appellant

got retired. He expanded his argument by stating that

prior to substitution of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the

Professors‘ Grade Rules the provision read as ―The post

of Professor in the service shall be filled up by direct

recruitment on the basis of merit through all-India

advertisement and through the selection made by the

Commission‖. The recruitment process for the post of

―Professor‖ being completely different than what was

amended with effect from 20.07.2006 and such post of

―Professor‖ was to be filled up by way of ―direct

recruitment‖ only, there was no scope or occasion for the

appellant(s) to claim for the Professors‘ Grade based on

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 79 of 93

subsequent amendment carried in the Rules after her

retirement on 31.05.2006. Even if it is considered that

the UGC Notification (CAS) has been adopted by the

Higher Education Department, there was no provision to

modify or amend the relevant Acts/Statutes of the

University within period stipulated as is required under

Regulation of 2010 [See, paragraph 25 of Gambhirdan K.

Gadhvi (supra)]. This Court finds force in such

submission. The learned Single Judge in his Order dated

10.12.2025 has candidly spoke that the text of the

provision in Paragraph 7.1.3 of the UGC Notification,

1998 only speaks of eligibility to be considered for

appointment as Professor and not as to entitlement for

such appointment. The Professors‘ Grade Rules, 1990 in

Rule 5(1) prior to amendment in 2006 postulated ―direct

recruitment on the basis of merit through all-India

advertisement and the selection made by the

Commission‖, which stands contradistinguished with the

existing provision that requires ―selection through the

Commission from among the eligible Readers in

Government Colleges of Odisha on merit and suitability

with due regard to seniority‖. In other words, the

appointment method changed from an open nationwide

competitive test to an internal promotion system. The

claim of the appellants/petitioners is not that they have

qualified conditions enshrined in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5.

Furthermore, Rule 6 makes it clear that whenever the

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 80 of 93

occasion to fill up the post in a particular or different

discipline in the service arises, the Government shall

send requisition to the Commission to furnish the name

of suitable persons. Therefore, the argument based on

the information provided to the appellant(s) under the

Right to Information Act, 2005 pales into insignificance

inasmuch as untrammeled answer is available in the

Order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner-

cum-Secretary, Higher Education Department to the

effect that:

―And whereas the petitioner retired from service well

before the promulgation of the Odisha Education Service

(College Branch) Recruitment Rules, 2020 which came

into effect on 18.02.2021. The promotion of seventy-six

Associate Professors cited by the petitioner was made

under the 2020 Rules, which have prospective operation.

As such, the petitioner, having retired prior to the

enforcement of the new Rules, is not entitled to claim

parity with Officers promoted under the said Rules.‖

11.7. It is well-nigh settled that the moment the appellant/

petitioner gets retired from service, the relationship

between the employer and employee ceased to exist.

Hence any amendment carried in statute would not

entail the retiree to claim benefit in the promotional post

derived from the provisions that come to exist

subsequent to the date of retirement.

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 81 of 93

11.8. The expression ‗retire‘ has been defined in Legal

Thesaurus by William C. Burton (Regular Edition Pg 453)

in the context of employment to mean to ‗conclude a

career‘. It has the following other meanings:

―Abdicate, demit, drop out, give notice, give up office, give

up work, leave, quit, relinquish, resign, stand aside, take

leave, tender one‘s resignation, vacate‖.

11.9. With benefit this Court may refer to the following

observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India so

far as revised pay scale vis-à-vis retired employees are

concerned in Chandrashekar A.K. Vrs. State of Kerala,

(2009) 1 SCC 73:

―11. Ordinarily, a person retiring from service on a

pensionable post would obtain the benefit of the

revision in the scale of pay. This was so held in U.P.

Raghavendra Acharya Vrs. State of Karnataka,

(2006) 9 SCC 630 wherein this Court opined:

‗19. The fact that the appellants herein were

treated to be on a par with the holders of

similar posts in government colleges is neither

denied nor disputed. The appellants

indisputably are governed by the UGC scales

of pay. They are entitled to the pensionary

benefits also. They had been given the benefits

of the revision of scales of pay by the Tenth

Pay Revision Committee with effect from

01.01.1986. The pensionary benefits payable

to them on attaining the age of superannuation

or death were also stated to be on a par with

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 82 of 93

the employees of the State Government. The

State of Karnataka, as noticed hereinbefore, for

all intent and purport, has treated the teachers

of the Government-aided colleges and the

regional engineering colleges on the one hand

and the teachers of the colleges run by the

State itself on the other hand on a par. Even

the financial rules were made applicable to

them in terms of the notifications, applying the

rule of incorporation by reference. Although

Rule 296 of the Rules per se may not be

applicable so far as the appellants are

concerned, it now stands admitted that the

provisions thereof have been applied to the

case of the appellants also for the purpose of

computation of pensionary benefits.‘

The services of the appellant being not a

pensionable one, in our opinion, U.P. Raghavendra

Acharya, (2006) 9 SCC 630 has no application to the

fact of the present case. In that case, the amount of

pension was to be calculated. On what basis the

same was required to be done was considered in the

following terms: (U.P. Raghavendra Acharya case,

(2006) 9 SCC 630, paras 22-23)

‗22. The State while implementing the new

scheme for payment of grant of

pensionary benefits to its employees, may

deny the same to a class of retired

employees who were governed by a

different set of rules. The extension of the

benefits can also be denied to a class of

employees if the same is permissible in

law. The case of the appellants, however,

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 83 of 93

stands absolutely on a different footing. They

had been enjoying the benefit of the revised

scales of pay. Recommendations have been

made by the Central Government as also the

University Grants Commission to the State of

Karnataka to extend the benefits of the Pay

Revision Committee in their favour. The pay in

their case had been revised in 1986 whereas

the pay of the employees of the State of

Karnataka was revised in 1993. The benefits

of the recommendations of the Pay Revision

Committee with effect from 01.01.1996, thus,

could not have been denied to the appellants.

23. The stand of the State of Karnataka that the

pensionary benefits had been conferred on the

appellants with effect from 01.04.998 on the

premise that the benefit of the revision of

scales of pay to its own employees had been

conferred from 01.01.1998, in our opinion, is

wholly misconceived. Firstly, because the

employees of the State of Karnataka and the

appellants, in the matter of grant of benefit of

revised scales of pay, do not stand on the

same footing as revised scales of pay had been

made applicable to their cases from a different

date. Secondly, the appellants had been given

the benefit of the revised scales of pay with

effect from 01.01.1996. It is now well settled

that a notification can be issued by the

State accepting the recommendations of

the Pay Revision Committee with

retrospective effect as it was beneficent to

the employees. Once such a retrospective

effect is given to the recommendations of

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 84 of 93

the Pay Revision Committee, the

employees concerned despite their

reaching the age of superannuation in

between the said dates and/or the date of

issuance of the notification would be

deemed to be getting the said scales of

pay as on 01.01.1996. By reason of such

notification, as the appellants had been

deprived of a vested right, they could not have

been deprived therefrom and that too by

reason of executive instructions.‘

***

13. We have noticed hereinbefore that both the Central

Government as also the State of Kerala categorically

stated that the notification had not come into force

on the dates on which the representations of the

appellant dated 01.01.1996 and 14.02.1996 were

rejected by them in terms of their Letters dated

31.01.1996 and 30.07.1996, respectively. In this

view of the matter, it is difficult to agree with the

contention of the learned counsel for the appellant

that the benefit of recommendation of his pay

revision committed stood implemented on the day on

which the appellant resigned. This aspect of the

matter has also been considered in State of T.N. Vrs.

Seshachalam, (2007) 10 SCC 137 stating:

‗15. It is one thing to say that the State had

come up with a policy decision which is

beneficial to all the employees irrespective

of the fact as to whether they had reached

the age of superannuation or not, the only

criterion being that they were recruited to

the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service on or

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 85 of 93

before 28.01.1994 but it is another thing

to say that the claim petitions filed by the

respondents were based on the success of

their colleagues before the Administrative

Tribunal in the year 1994. The employees

working in the Finance Department had been

promoted long back. We have noticed

hereinbefore that some of them retired as

Additional Secretaries whereas the

respondents retired as merely Assistants.

Presumably, promotions to the employees of

the Finance Department were given

systematically over a long period of time but no

such grievance was made nor was any

application filed before the appropriate forum.

Such grievance, in our opinion, should have

been raised or proper application before the

Tribunal should have been filed long long back.

It was in the aforementioned situation, the

Tribunal was of the opinion that their

applications were barred by limitation.

Assuming that the cause of action for filing

such applications arose in view of the

observations made by the Tribunal in its order

dated 16.04.1993 passed in Original

Application No. 166 of 1990, but then in terms

of the Act and the Rules, the respondents were

required to file a proper application within a

period of one year only. It is borne out from the

records that, in fact, 62 such applications were

already pending when GOMs No. 126 was

issued.‘

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 86 of 93

Therein U.P. Raghavendra Acharya, (2006) 9 SCC

630 was distinguished, stating: (Seshachalam case,

(2007) 10 SCC 137, pp. 149-50, para 28)

‗28. Reference has also been made by Mr

Venkataramani to a decision of this Court in

U.P. Raghavendra Acharya Vrs. State of

Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 630 wherein it was

held that pension is not a bounty and it is a

deferred salary. This Court is not concerned

herein with such a situation. In the said

decision, this Court was concerned with a case

where an employee retiring on a particular

date was to receive 50% of the pension on the

enhanced salary. In the fact situation obtaining

therein that as the revision of pay and

consequent revision in pension had come into

force and by reason of a notification, the

modality of computing the pension was

required to be determined, those who had

fulfilled the conditions laid down therein were

held to be entitled to the benefits provided for

thereunder holding that the employees

concerned had a vested right therein.‘

14. The question as to whether the scale of pay

would be revised or not is a matter of policy

decision for the State. No legal right exists in a

person to get a revised scale of pay

implemented. It may be recommended by a

body but ultimately it has to be accepted by the

employer or by the State which has to bear the

financial burden. This aspect of the matter has

been considered by this Court in HEC Voluntary

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 87 of 93

Retd. Employees Welfare Society Vrs. Heavy Engg.

Corpn. Ltd., (2006) 3 SCC 708 p. 716, para 19):

‗19. It is not in dispute that the effect of such

voluntary retirement scheme is cessation of

jural relationship between the employer and

the employee. Once an employee opts to retire

voluntarily, in terms of the contract he cannot

raise a claim for a higher salary unless by

reason of a statute he becomes entitled thereto.

He may also become entitled thereto even

if a policy in that behalf is formulated by

the Company.‘

(See also LIC Vrs. Retired LIC Officers Assn., (2008)

3 SCC 321).‖

11.10. Thus, it is evident that the word ‗retirement‘ is a

word of wide import and the same inter alia means the

conclusion of a career. From the documents enclosed

with the memorandum of appeal vide W.A. No.100 of

2026 it could be ascertained that the appellant got

retired on superannuation on 31.05.2006, at the cost of

repetition it may be stated that the appellants in W.A.

Nos.106 and 107 of 2026 have conspicuously avoided to

disclose the date of superannuation. The learned Senior

Counsel did not raise objection to the submission of the

learned Additional Government Advocate that the

appellants, promoted to the rank of Reader in the year

2002 (later ante-dated to 1994), have got retired in the

year 2006 prior to the Odisha Education Service

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 88 of 93

(Professors‘ Grade) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules,

2006 came into force with effect from 20.07.2006.

11.11. Conspectus of above discussion would lead to the

conclusion that the appellants cannot be allowed the

relief claimed for inasmuch as the learned Single Judge

has rightly stated that CAS vide UGC Notification, 1998

as adopted by the Government of Odisha in Higher

Education Department Resolution, 31.12.1999 only

speaks about ―eligibility to be considered for appointment

as a Professor and not as to entitlement for such

appointment‖.

11.12. The scope of interference with the judgment/order

of the learned Single Judge of this Court in intra-Court

appeal filed under Article 4 of the Odisha High Court

Order, 1948 read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent

constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna and

Rule 6 of Chapter-III and Rule 2 of Chapter-VIII of the

Rules of the High Court of Odisha, 1948, can be

couched in the observations contained in following

decisions rendered by Courts:

i. N. Ramachandra Reddy Vrs. State of Telengana,

(2019) 11 SCR 792:

―43. Further, in the case of Management of

Narendra & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Workmen

of Narendra & Company, (2016) 3 SCC 340,

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 89 of 93

while considering the scope of the intra court

appeal, this Court has held that, unless

Appellate Bench concludes that findings of the

learned Single Judge are perverse, it shall not

disturb the same.‖

ii. Management of Narendra & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vrs.

Workmen of Narendra & Company, (2016) 3 SCC

340:

―Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a

finding of fact, unless the appellate Bench reaches a

conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is

perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely

because another view or a better view is possible,

there should be no interference with or disturbance

of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both

sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.‖

iii. Wander Ltd. Vrs. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp.1

SCC 727:

―14. The appeals before the Division Bench were

against the exercise of discretion by the Single

Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will

not interfere with the exercise of discretion of

the court of first instance and substitute its

own discretion except where the discretion has

been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily,

or capriciously or perversely or where the court

had ignored the settled principles of law

regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory

injunctions. An appeal against exercise of

discretion is said to be an appeal on principle.

Appellate court will not reassess the material

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 90 of 93

and seek to reach a conclusion different from

the one reached by the court below if the one

reached by that court was reasonably possible

on the material. The appellate court would

normally not be justified in interfering with the

exercise of discretion under appeal solely on

the ground that if it had considered the matter

at the trial stage it would have come to a

contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been

exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a

judicial manner the fact that the appellate court

would have taken a different view may not

justify interference with the trial court’s

exercise of discretion. After referring to these

principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers

(Mysore) Private Ltd. Vrs. Pothan Joseph,

(1960) 3 SCR 713 = AIR 1960 SC 1156: (SCR

721)

‗*** These principles are well established, but

as has been observed by Viscount Simon in

Charles Osenton & Co. Vrs. Jhanaton, 1942

AC 130:

‗*** the law as to the reversal by a court of

appeal of an order made by a judge below in

the exercise of his discretion is well

established, and any difficulty that arises is

due only to the application of well settled

principles in an individual case’. ***’ …‖

iv. Anindita Mohanty Vrs. The Senior Regional

Manager, H.P. Co. Ltd., Bhubaneswar, 2020 (II) ILR-

CUT 398:

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 91 of 93

―*** Let us first examine the power of the Division

Bench while entertaining a Letters Patent appeal

against the judgment/order of the Single Judge. This

writ appeal has been nomenclatured as an

application under Article 4 of the Orissa High Court

Order, 1948 read with clause 10 of the Letters

Patent Act, 1992. Letters Patent of the Patna High

Court has been made applicable to this Court by

virtue of Orissa High Court Order, 1948. Letters

Patent Appeal is an intra-Court appeal where under

the Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of

Correction, corrects its own orders in exercise of the

same jurisdiction as vested in the Single Bench. (Ref:

(1996) 3 SCC 52, Baddula Lakshmaiah Vrs. Shri

Anjaneya Swami Temple). The Division Bench in

Letters Patent Appeal should not disturb the finding

of fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge of the

Court unless it is shown to be based on no evidence,

perverse, palpably unreasonable or inconsistent

with any particular position in law. This scope of

interference is within a narrow compass. Appellate

jurisdiction under Letters Patent is really a corrective

jurisdiction and it is used rarely only to correct

errors, if any made.

In the case of B. Venkatamuni Vrs. C.J. Ayodhya

Ram Singh reported in (2006) 13 Supreme Court

Cases 449, it is held that in an intra-Court appeal,

the Division Bench undoubtedly may be entitled to

reappraise both questions of fact and law, but

entertainment of a letters patent appeal is

discretionary and normally the Division Bench

would not, unless there exist cogent reasons, differ

from a finding of fact arrived at by the Single Judge.

Even a Court of first appeal which is the final Court

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 92 of 93

of appeal on fact may have to exercise some amount

of restraint. Similar view was taken in the case of

Umabai Vrs. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan reported in

(2005) 6 SCC 243. In the case of Commissioner of

Income Tax Vrs. Karnataka Planters Coffee Curing

Work Private Limited reported in (2016) 9 SCC 538,

it is held that the jurisdiction of the Division Bench in

a writ appeal is primarily one of adjudication of

questions of law. Findings of fact recorded

concurrently by the authorities under the Act

concerned (Income Tax Act) and also in the first

round of the writ proceedings by the learned Single

Judge are not to be lightly disturbed. Thus a writ

appeal is an appeal on principle where the legality

and validity of the judgment and/or order of the

Single Judge is tested and it can be set aside only

when there is a patent error on the face of the record

or the judgment is against established or settled

principle of law. If two views are possible and a

view, which is reasonable and logical, has been

adopted by a Single Judge, the other view,

howsoever appealing may be to the Division Bench;

it is the view adopted by the Single Judge, which

would, normally be allowed to prevail. If the

discretion has been exercised by the Single Judge in

good faith and after giving due weight to relevant

matters and without being swayed away by

irrelevant matters and if two views are possible on

the question, then also the Division Bench in writ

appeal should not interfere, even though it would

have exercised its discretion in a different manner,

were the case come initially before it. The exercise of

discretion by the Single Judge should manifestly be

wrong which would then give scope of interference

to the Division Bench.‖

W.A. Nos.100, 106 & 107 of 2026 Page 93 of 93

11.13. Above position of fact and law leads to conclude

that this Court perceives no infirmity or illegality in the

view expressed by the learned Single Judge through

decision vide Order dated 10.12.2025 passed in W.P.(C)

No.33579 of 2025 (Dr. Labangalata Bisoi Vrs. State of

Odisha and Another) and batch (Annexure-15).

12. In the result, finding no merit in the writ appeals

challenging the common Order dated 10.12.2025 vide

Annexure-15, the W.A Nos.100, 106 and 107 of 2026

stand disposed of, but in the circumstances, there shall

be no order as to costs.

I agree.

(HARISH TANDON) (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)

CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

The 20

th August, 2026/Aswini/Bichi/Laxmikant