(1.) The petitioners, in all these writ petitions, have assailed the common order dtd. 30/6/2016 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. Nos 130 (C) of 2014, 131 (C) of 2014 and 140 (C) of 2014, by which the tribunal rejected the claim made by the petitioners holding that they have not secured 35% of mark in the written examination to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector.
(2.) During the course of hearing, Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the applicant in O.A. No. 131 (C) of 2014 since has in the meantime retired from service, he does not want to press W.P.(C) No. 8087 of 2016. Similarly, the applicant in O.A. No. 140 (C) of 2014 having been already promoted, he also does not want to press W.P.(C) No. 8089 of 2016. In view of such submission, W.P.(C) Nos. 8087 of 2016 and 8089 of 2016 stand disposed of as not pressed.
(3.) Therefore, this Court proceeded to decide W.P.(C) No. 8086 of 2016 filed by Ganeshwar Panda on merits. His case is that while he was serving as a Class-IV employee in Nandahandi Tahasil Office, on 13/12/2011, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to the posts of Revenue Inspector (RI)/Assistant Revenue Inspector (ARI)/Amin in Nabarangpur district. Total number of vacancies notified to be 45 (15 RIs + 20 ARIs + 10 Amins). Subsequent thereto, a corrigendum was issued on 29/3/2012, by which it was clarified that posts of 14 ARIs and 6 Amins would be filled up by way of promotion. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied for the post of ARI, as he was otherwise eligible for promotion to the said post in terms of the provisions of the Orissa District Revenue Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983 (for short "Rules, 1983"). After being qualified in the physical test, a common written test was conducted both for the direct recruits and the promotees, in which the petitioner appeared. Same set up questions were put for both the categories. The result of such examination was published and appointment orders were issued vide order no. 2113 dtd. 29/10/2013. As the petitioner could not come out successful, he applied for certain documents under Right to Information Act, 2005 and came to know that his candidature, as well as of other Group-D employees, was rejected to make room for the direct recruit candidates.