NABAKISHORE PRADHAN Vs. ORISSA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.12.1998 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal dismissing O.A. No.3001 of 1994, which was filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts of the petitioners case are that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.) on 3.9.1966. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.) on 11.4.1975. The next promotional post was the post of Head Clerk promotion to which was to be made in accordance with the draft rules of the year 1975 which were being followed in which it was provided that for the post of Head Clerk in the District Employment Exchanges passing of Final Accounts Examination is essential. Prior to the draft rules, a circular was also issued by the P&S Department in Memo No.9983/(88)/Gen.2/R.1 -62/61 dated 12.8.1961 to the effect that passing of departmental examination was necessary for promotion to the post of Head Clerk. As the post of Head Clerk was the highest ministerial post in the District Offices and the Head Clerk is responsible for cash, preparation of bills and budget, maintenance of cash book, stock and store, confidential matters, general correspondence, submission of account returns and all other important affairs including general supervision of the District Employment Exchange, passing of the departmental accounts examination conducted by the Board of Revenue was an essential qualification. Appearing at such examination was voluntary. An employee had to take initiative to appear at such examination and on the basis of willingness, the department use to recommended names of the volunteers for such examination. The criteria for promotion to the post of Head Clerk was seniority -cum -merit.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that opposite party No.4 in the instant writ petition had not passed the Departmental Accounts Examination and was not eligible for promotion to the post of Head Clerk but his case was considered ignoring the candidature of the petitioner and ignoring the fact that opposite party No.4 was not qualified for being considered.