RAMANATH PADHI Vs. COLLECTOR, GANJAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Revenue Inspector under the ex-Zamindar of Chikiti in the district of Ganjam on 15th Nov., 1945. On abolition of me zamindari the petitioner was brought under the ex-Anchal administration as a Revenue inspector on 1st June, 1953. That very day opposite party No. 2 was also brought under the ex-Anchal administration as a Revenue Inspector. Thereafter, the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 2 were brought into the regular cadre of Grade I Revenue Inspectors. Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 7 were then appointed as Revenue Inspectors on 10th Jan., 1963, 23rd July, 1960, 27th Feb., 1963, 4th Jan., 1963 and tun September, 1958 respectively, in the gradation list prepared after the appointment of opposite party Nos. 3 to 7 the petitioner was shown as senior to opposite party Nos. 2 to 7. On 15th Nov., 1957 Anchal administration was abolished. The petitioner, opposite party No. 2 and other ex-Anchal employees were taken under the Khasmahal administration as temporary Government employees subject to their final absorption (vide Annexure G, dated 15th April, 1958). By Annexure-G Government decided that those Anchal employees found educationally less qualified but otherwise considered suitable shall be absorbed in the posts held by them subject to test. This decision of Government was reiterated in letter, dated 2nd April, 1960 of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Orissa in the Revenue Department to the Commissioner of land Reforms (vide Annexure-A). On 1st Jan., 1964 Tahsil was reorganised in the district of Ganjam. Government by a resolution dated 13th March, 1965 (Annexure-D to the counter filed by opposite party No. 3) decided that the service rendered by the ex-estate employees during pre-vesting period should not count towards seniority in the district cadre in which they are finally absorbed; that the continuous service rendered immediately before final absorption, i. e. service under the ex-Anchal administration and service rendered from 15th Nov., 1957 (the day the Anchal administration was abolished) till the date of final absorption in a particular grade should count towards seniority in the same grade in the district can re and that when an ex-Anchal employee is absorbed in a lower rank though he was working in a higher rank till the date of his final absorption, the period of continuous service in such higher rank and in all other equal ranks rendered by him from the date of vesting till the date of absorption should be counted towards seniority in the grade of his absorption in the district cadre. The petitioner was not qualified for the post to which he was appointed under the ex-Anchal administration, and so also, opposite party No. 2. Therefore, both the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 2 were to be governed by the Government decisions contained in Annexure G. A and D. The first qualifying test for ex-Anchal employees was held on 6th Sept., 1965. None of the ex-Anchal employees including the petitioner in the district of Ganjam appeared in this examination. The petitioner passed the final departmental examination in Accounts on 13th Dec., 1965, thus qualifying him for promotion. The petitioner was promoted as Revenue Supervisor Grade II on the 30th May, 1967. On 5th Aug., 1968 he was deputed as Executive Officer, Sorada N.A.C. He passed the qualifying test held on 26th Aug., 1968 for Revenue Supervisors while opposite party No. 2 passed a similar test for Revenue Inspectors (vide Annexure-B to the counter filed by opposite party No. 1). On 8th Aug., 1971 the petitioner reverted to his parent post of Revenue Supervisor as a result of which opposite party No. 3 who had been promoted to the post of Revenue Supervisor Grade II was reverted to the post of Revenue Inspector Grade I. Sometime thereafter the petitioner proceeded on leave. On his return from leave when he joined as Revenue Supervisor Grade II, opposite party No. 4 who was officiating as Revenue Supervisor Grade II reverted to the post of Revenue Inspector Grade I. In the meanwhile, opposite party No. 2 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Southern Division), Berhampur who by his order, dated 17th July, 1972 (Annexure C to the counter filed by opposite party No. 1) allowed the appeal by saying that opposite party No. 2 was the only person who was qualified and that his C.C.R. was better than the C. C. R. of the petitioner. By the said order the R. D. C. directed the Collector to reconsider the case of opposite party No. 2 and to report within 13 days. In pursuance to this direction, opposite party No. 1 reverted the petitioner to the post of Revenue Inspector Grade I and promoted opposite party No. 2 in place of the petitioner to the post of Revenue Supervisor Grade II by order (Annexure 2). The petitioner thereafter made a representation to the Collector (Opp. party No. 1) against the order of his reversion. On 3rd Feb., 1973 the petitioner was again promoted to the post of Revenue Supervisor Grade II by order (Annexure 3). Opp. party no. 3 made a representation to the R.D.C. (Southern Division) who allowed the same by his order dated 12-5-73 (Annexure F to the counter filed by opp. party no. 1). In pursuance to this order of the R. D. C. the petitioner was again reverted to the post of Revenue Inspector Gr.I and in his place opp. party no. 3 was promoted to the post of Revenue Supervisor Or. II by opp. party no. 1 by order (Annexure 4). On this date of petitioner's reversion opp. party nos. 2 and 4 to 7 who are all juniors to the petitioner were continuing as Revenue Supervisors Gr. II. The petitioner therefore has filed this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the two orders, viz., Annexures 2 and 4. He has also prayed for a direction to quash the said two orders and for other consequential reliefs.

(2.) The factual aspect of the petitioner's case is substantially admitted by the opp. parties in their respective returns.

(3.) The petitioner only challenges the two orders of his reversion, viz., Annexures 2 and 4, passed by opposite party No. 1 reverting him from the post of Revenue Supervisor Gr. II to the post of Revenue Inspector Gr. I as per the directions of the R. D. C. (Southern Division) (vide Annexures C and F to the counter filled by opp. party No. 1) on the representations of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 one after another. It may be remembered in this connection that opp. party No. 3 being a Matriculate was qualified appointee to the post of Revenue Inspector Gr. I from the very inception, whereas the petitioner and opposite party No 2 were unqualified appointees. The petitioner contends that though unqualified he was appointed to the post of Revenue Inspector Gr. I on 1-6-53 under the ex-Anchal administration and that very day opposite party No. 2 who was also unqualified and joined the post of Revenue Inspector Gr. I under the same administration. In the gradation list that was published on 1-9-55 the petitioner was shown as senior to opp. party No. 2 opp. patty Nos. 3 to 7 not having joined service by then. Opp. party No. 1, however, in his return has taken the plea that the gradation list of 1955 is not available. Still it has been admitted by him that on the basis of the dates of joining the posts of Revenue Inspectors Gr. I the petitioner has been shown as senior to opp. party Nos. 2 to 7 in the year 1966-67. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he is senior to opposite party Nos. 2 to 7 must be accepted. It is then urged for the petitioner that he passed the preliminary Parts I and II examinations in the years 1963 and 1964 and passed the final Accounts examination held in 13-12-65. A Revenue Inspector Gr. I becomes eligible for promotion to the post of Revenue Supervisor Gr. II only on passing of these examinations. Therefore, the petitioner after having passed these examinations became eligible for promotion to the next higher rank, and as a matter of fact he was promoted to the post of Revenue Supervisor Gr. II on 21-5-67. It is further contended that the petitioner who was initially an unqualified ex-Anchal employee was taken under the Khasmahal Department of Government along with other unqualified ex-Anchal employees subject to final absorption. At this stage came the Government decision (Annexure G) which laid down in paragraph 2 iv that those ex-Anchal employees found education ally less qualified but otherwise considered suitable might be absorbed in the posts held by them subject to their pissing a test. This decision of Government (Annexure G) was reiterated in Annexure A. The relevant portion of Annexure A reads thus: