BAMADEV SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Asst. Teacher, by means of this writ petition, seeks direction to the opposite parties for inclusion of his name in the draft gradation list dtd. 1/9/2012, which was prepared by opposite party no.3-District Inspector of Schools, Angul with a further prayer to quash the said draft gradation list.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner, by following due procedure of selection, was appointed as Asst. Teacher by the District Selection Committee and posted in Gopinathpur Lower Primary School, vide letter dtd. 22/9/1981 issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Angul-opposite party no.3, pursuant to which he joined on 26/9/1981. While so continuing, he acquired B.Ed. qualification on 1985 and became Trained Graduate from the date of acquisition of such qualification. By office order dtd. 21/1/1989 issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Dhenkanal, the petitioner was placed on deputation to Samal Barrage U.P. School under Angul Education District. Pursuant to such order, the petitioner was relived from the control of District Inspector of Schools, Dhenkanal and joined in Samal Barrage U.P. School on 1/2/1989 under the District Inspector of Schools, Angul, Orissa.

(3.) Mr. H.P. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the second limb of the prayer with regard to quashing of draft gradation list prepared by opposite party no.3-District Inspector of Schools, Angul, and contended that the authorities, by not considering the objection raised by the petitioner in proper perspective, have acted arbitrarily and unreasonably, and that on the basis of the draft gradation list, if promotions are effected from Level-V to Level-IV to the prejudice of the petitioner, the same cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is further contended that if the statutory rules prescribed a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same has to be adhered to in the same manner. When Explanation-I to Rule-15 of the Rules, 1997, unambiguously prescribes that the seniority of the petitioner shall be determined with reference to the date of his appointment, the petitioner, having been appointed as Asst. Teacher on 22/9/1981, his seniority should have been fixed accordingly. This position has been settled by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14979 of 2010 and batch disposed of on 23.12.20211 and while interpreting the provisions of Exaplanation-1 to Rule-15 of Rules, 1997, this Court held that on the basis of initial date of appointment seniority is to be fixed. In view of the ratio decided in the said case, since the petitioner's date of appointment was 22/9/1981, his name should have found place in the gradation list prepared by the authority. Non-inclusion of his name in the draft gradation list prepared by the authority is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law.