K RAMAVATARAM Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner files this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ on the opposite party in the nature of certiorari or passing any other order quashing the order of the Collector of Ganjamdated 29 -8 -49 reducing the petitioner from his permanent post of an upper division clerk to that of a lower division clerk and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to hold his substantive permanent post of upper division clerk and to his pay and allowances in the time scale with effect from 9 -4 -46 with the usual promotions.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is briefly as follows : He was appointed as a lower division clerk in the Ganjam Collectorate on 16 -6 -37 and was confirmed as such in or about 1939. Subsequently on 9 -6 -46, he was promoted as an upper division clerk and was confirmed in that post on the very same date. He was also promoted to work in the selection grade as a selection grade clerk from 9 -6 -46 to 18 -10 -49 and earned two increments in the selection grade in the revised scales of pay introduced from 1 -4 -47. His confirmation as an upper division clerk was made after the authorities were satisfied that he was duly qualified for the post, he having passed the required departmental tests and undergone the required one year's course as Revenue Inspector under the rules in the ex -Madras area, and as required under the Collector's proceedings dated 8 -12 -45. The promotion of the petitioner land four others to the post of an upper division clerk and to the selection grade was the subject -matter of an interpellation in the Legislative Assembly wherein the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Orissa, stated that the appointment and pro motion were in order, and that there was no contravention of any of the rules. After a lapse of three years by an order dated 29 -3 -49, the Collector of Ganjam intimated to the petitioner that his confirmation had been cancelled as on a close examination of these confirmations it had been found that they were irregular and not in strict accordance with the rules. The petitioner then appealed and made several representations to the Board of Revenue and to the Government to restore him to his upper division post, but he was intimated on, 22 -9 -51 the decision arrived at in the matter in question by the Government, to the effect that his confirmation along with some others was thoroughly examined and as those confirmations were irregular and not in accordance with the rules and were made in supersession of the claims of other senior clerks, the confirmations were cancelled. He made representation to the Board of Revenue which was also rejected. The final rejection of his representation is dated 26 -8 -52. The petitioner further alleged that his reduction from the rank of a permanent upper division clerk to that of a lower division clerk was contrary to Art. 311 of the Constitution as he was not given any opportunity at all to show cause for such reduction and as no charges were framed against him and it was also contrary to the rules in force.

(3.) THERE is no doubt, from a review of the enclosures filed along with the petition and the affidavit on behalf of the opposite party, that there was a great deal of bungling on the part of the authorities from the Collector right upto the Chief Minister of the State in this matter. The Collector admits in his affidavit that the relevant rules were not pointed out to the Government when information was given to the Assembly questions and the Hon'ble Chief Minister answered the questions as he was then advised. This was mainly due to the fact that the rules governing the promotions and confirmations of clerks in the Ganjam Collectorate were some of the rules of Madras Government prevailing in the ex -Madras area at the time of formation of this Province and the other rules were those prevailing in Orissa. The officers dealing with these cases were either not aware of the exact rules to be applied or were misled by being shown some rule or other whether of Madras or of Orissa in order to suit the particular matter in controversy. When there were persistent representations by the other clerks who were superseded on account of the promotion and confirmation of the petitioner and four others, the matter wag thoroughly examined with reference to the rules actually applicable and the Government came to the conclusion that the promotion and confirmation of the petitioner and four others were made contrary to the rules and in supersession of the claims of many senior clerks eligible to promotion to those posts.