LAXMI MANI SOREN Vs. ORISSA KHADI AND VILLAGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Accountant on 2 -8 -85 and was promoted to the post of Senior Accountant on 14 -10 -88 in the establishment of the Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board (in short 'the Board'). Admittedly the petitioner is a lady belonging to Scheduled Tribe Community. She has approached the portals of this Court being aggrieved by the action of the Board which is not considering her case for promotion to the post of Accounts Supervisor. Itis alleged that on 22 -4 -92, ignoring the claim of the petitioner, opp. parties promoted opp. party No. 6 to the post of AccountsSupervisor, for which the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ application.

(2.) IT is specifically submitted by the petitioner that she being a Scheduled Tribe woman, in consonance with the Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for S. C. and S. T.) Act, 1975 and the Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for S. C. and S. T.) Rules, 1976, as amended in 1984, she should have been considered for the post and appointed as Accounts Supervisor. It is further averred that the post being one for reserved category, the Board authorities acted illegally in appointing opp. party No. 6 who belongs to general category without dereserving the post.

(3.) IN view of the inter se controversy the stand taken by the Board that the petitioner was not eligible on merit, needs to be decided first. According to the Board, the petitioner has no right to be promoted. Relying upon Regulation No. 18 of the Board's Regulation, 1960, the opp, parties submit that promotion to the higher grades/ranks are to be made on the basis of merit and ability and that none shall be promoted who is not on the basis of his record and in the opinion of the appointing authority, fit for promotion and of those who are fit, only the fittest shall be promoted to any particular vacancy, the factor of seniority being taken into account only when all other factors and particularly the factor of merit are equal. It is stated that Accounts Supervisors are the Head Ministerial Officer of the Accounts Section and the said post is equivalent to the post of Section Officer of the General Branch and Audit Superintendent of Audit Branch, the scale of pay of the Accounts Supervisor being identical to the scale of pay of the Section Officers. Placing reliance on the Government Resolution dated 1 -1 -1985 (Annexure -A) and Memo No. 14030 dated 13.5.1988 (Annexure -B), it is contended that the Board has accepted the guidelines prescribed by the Government and according to the said resolution, an employee is eligible to be promoted to the post of Accounts Supervisor if he/she has rendered a minimum of 12 years of continuous service inclusive of 9 years service as Senior Accountant. The petitioner admittedly having been appointed on 2 -8 -1985 as a Junior Accountant and having been promoted to the post of Senior Accountant on 14 -10 -1988, did not satisfy the eligibility criteria and does not possess minimum qualification for being promoted to the post of Accounts Supervisor. The applicability of Government Resolution dated 1 -1 -1985 to the employees working under the Board came up for consideration before this Court in O. J. C. No. 318 of 1990 (Golak Bihari Sethi v. Orissa Khadi & Pillage Industries Board and Ors.) and this Court, categorically came to a finding that the said resolution, a copy of which is Annexure -A to the counter is not applicable to the Board. The same plea is no more available to the Board. It is further contended by the opp. parties that the Board follows the Government Circulars regarding promotion and other matters. The mere fact that the Board has been following the Government Circulars, even if that be so, would not lend legal colour to the action of the Board. If non -applicability of a particular Circular is canvassed before this Court, the Board, which has followed that Circular, has to satisfy that it was legally enjoinded to do what it had done and if the Circular issued by the Government has ipso facto application to the Board. Similar contention was also raised by the Board in the case referred to supra and has been negatived.