MURALIDHAR MALLICK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Some of the employees of Bhubaneswar Development Authority have filed this writ application for quashing Annexure-3 in which the opposite parties 4 to 11 have been promoted from the posts of Junior Assistant to the posts of Senior Assistants and for a direction to the opposite parties 1 to 3 to follow 80-Points Model Roster and fill up the vacancies in the rank of Senior Assistants.

(2.) The petitioners are working as Junior Assistants under Bhubaneswar Development Authority (in short 'B.D.A.') and belong to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community. As per the Service Condition Regulation, 1995 meant for the employees of the B.D.A., vacancies are required to be reserved and filled up by candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Community in terms of the provision of the Orissa Reservation Vacancies Act, 1975 and Rules made thereunder. According to the 80-Points Model Roster, out of the 14 vacancies available in the rank of Senior Assistants, seven vacancies are to be filled by the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. However, ignoring the 80-Points Model Roster, B.D.A. authority had given promotion to the aforesaid opposite parties to the posts of Senior Assistants and thereby violated the provisions of the Orissa Reservation Vacancies Act (hereinafter called the 'O.R.V. Act"). Petitioners 1 to 3 were initially appointed as Junior Assistants with effect from 6.2.1997, petitioners 4 to 10 were similarly appointed as Junior Assistants with effect from 9.10.1998 and petitioner No. 11 was appointed to the said post with effect from 15.10.1998. While they are continuing as such, 14 (fourteen) posts of Junior Assistants were upgraded to Senior Assistants on 26.7.1999. According to the petitioners, as per the provision of the O.R.V. Act as well as Regulation 8 of the Service Condition Regulations, 1995, out of the 14 upgraded posts, seven should have been filled up from amongst the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Junior Assistants. But unfortunately, all the 14 posts have been filled up by the general candidates. Further, according to the petitioners, they were eligible for promotion to the posts of Senior Assistants when the posts of Junior Assistants were upgraded and their cases having been ignored, they have approached this Court in this writ application.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party No. 3 in which it is stated that as per the notification issued by the Government in General Administration Department dated 11.4.1994, 90 per cent of the vacancies in the rank of Senior Assistants are to be filled up by eligible Junior Assistants on being selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Clause-13 (2) of the said notification stipulates that no Junior Assistant shall be promoted to the rank of Senior Assistant unless he has put in at least three years of continuous service as Junior Assistant and considered fit to perform the duties of a Senior Assistant. According to the principles followed by the Government, a ratio is maintained between the Junior Assistants and Senior Assistants. Each section is headed by a Section Officer/Head Assistant and under him four Senior Assistants and two Junior Assistants work. But in the year, 1999, it was found that there were sixty six Junior Assistants in the Establishment whereas the posts of Senior Assistants were forty three. In view of the above, it was decided to upgrade some posts of Junior Assistants to that of Senior Assistants to maintain the ratio properly. Keeping the above in mind, the authority of the B.D.A. in its 70th meeting held on 26.7.1999, decided to upgrade fourteen Junior Assistants to that of Senior Assistants and accordingly, the posts were upgraded and the incumbents holding the posts continued on the basis of their seniority. The further stand taken in the counter affidavit is that when the posts were upgraded, the 80-Points Model Roster is not required to be followed and so also the provisions of the O.R.V. Act. Apart from the above, a further stand is taken in the counter affidavit saying that as on 17.12.1999 none of the petitioners had got requisite years of service to his credit for the purpose of either up-gradation or promotion and accordingly, their cases could not have been considered. A separate counter affidavit has also been filed by the opposite parties 12 to 18 who are intervenors in this writ application as have been allowed to continue as Senior Assistants after upgradation. Almost the same stand is taken by the opposite parties 12 to 18 as that of the opposite party No. 3 and therefore, it is not required to repeat the stand taken by the said opposite parties.