RUPANWITA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was opposite party no.5 in O.A. No. 669 of 2010, which was filed by the present opposite party no.5 before Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dtd. 2/5/2014 passed by the tribunal under Annexure-11 to the writ petition and also the consequential gradation list prepared and communicated vide letter dtd. 3/6/2014 under Annexure-12 to the writ petition. The petitioner also seeks direction to the State-opposite parties to fix her seniority over and above present opposite party no.5, who was the applicant before the tribunal, as was before.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that in the year 1989 names of the petitioner, opposite party no.5 and others were sponsored by the employment exchange for appointment in the post of Junior Coach in different disciplines under the Directorate of Sports. After following due procedure of selection, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Coach in the discipline of Athletics and opposite party No.5 was appointed as Junior Coach in the discipline of Volleyball. One Rashmiranjan Samantray was appointed as Junior Coach in the discipline of Basketball. The petitioner, opposite party no.5 and Rashmiranjan Samantaray were appointed, vide order dtd. 27/9/1989, and opposite party No.5 was shown junior to the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. S. Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in the year 2001 the final gradation list was prepared and published in compliance of all the procedures and the same was communicated to all the Junior Coaches, including the opposite party no.5. The same had reached its finality and at no point of time, more particularly, at the stage of publication of provisional gradation list which was communicated to all the Junior Coaches and or at the stage of publication of final gradation list on 2/5/2001, opposite party no.5 had raised any objection or challenged the same. As such, the same having reached finality, is binding on all the Junior Coaches, including opposite party no.5. After lapse of 6 years of publication of final gradation list, when the next provisional gradation list was published in the year 2006 for deletion and inclusion of names, opposite party no.5 cannot assail the same, as he is estopped to do so. Thereby, at his behest, challenge to the placement in the final gradation list cannot be made. The fact, that the petitioner is senior to opposite party no.5, was never objected to by him (opposite party no.5). As such, for the conduct of opposite party no.5, if at all he had got any right, the same has been waived and the present claim for his seniority over and above the petitioner, is hit by doctrine of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel. It is further contended that the tribunal has not taken into consideration the materials placed before it in proper perspective and, as such, the order impugned cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is also contended that as the seniority of the petitioner had already been fixed since the date of her appointment over and above opposite party no.5, even after rejoining in the service in the year 1992 treating the period of absence as earned leave, and consequentially her seniority was fixed in the year 2001, after inviting objection from all the Junior Coaches, including opposite party no.5, and final gradation list was published on 2/5/2001, it is binding on all the Junior Coaches, including opposite party no.5. Therefore, after lapses of six years, opposite party no.5 cannot challenge the seniority of the petitioner, when the next provisional gradation list was published and had reached its finality in the year 2001.