STATE OF ORISSA Vs. ORISSA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is directed against the Order Dated 9.7.2008 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short, 'the Tribunal') wherein the Tribunal has quashed the order of reversion dated 23.2.2007 passed against Opposite Party No. 2 as well as the order of handing over charge of even date and allowing him to continue in the promotional post.

(2.) THE short facts giving rise to this Writ Petition are that while O.P. No. 2 was continuing as Forest Guard, the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short the 'DPC') held a meeting on 11.04.1989 for filling up of seven temporary vacancies in the cadre of Foresters caused due to superannuation and leave vacancies of Foresters, suspension etc. The DPC prepared a list of seven Forest Guards who were selected as Foresters on promotion. In the said list, the name of O.P. No. 2 finds place at SI. No. 5. On reinstatement of one Nakula Mahakud, Forester, who was placed under suspension, O.P. No. 2 was reverted to his former post vide Order Dated 14.4.1992 under Annexure -1. Against the said order of reversion, O.P. No. 2 filed O.A. No. 696 of 1992 before the Tribunal to quash the order of reversion. Learned Tribunal by an interim Order Dated 09.07.1992 stayed the order of reversion dated 14.04.1992 observing therein that O.P. No. 2 had not been promoted in the vacancy of Nakul Mahakud. The said O.A. was disposed of as infructuous on 27.7.2005. Thereafter, vide Order Dated 23.2.2007 O.P. No. 2 was reverted back to his former post of Forest Guard and was attached to Patnagarh KL Range Office as Forest Guard on reversion. Being aggrieved, O.P. No. 2 filed O.A. No. 629(C)/07 challenging the order of reversion dated 23.02.2007 posting him as Forest Guard at Patnagarh KL Range Office with a direction to handover complete charge of the Forest Central Godown of Patnagarh KL Range and Kandumundi KL Station to the Forester, Shri A.R. Sunani Bhaina, KL Section. Thereafter, on 28.08.2007, O.P. No. 2 reverted back to his parent Division, Khariar KL by order of the Conservator of Forest (KL), Bolangir Circle, Bolangir. The Tribunal has allowed the O.A. No. 629(C)/ 2007 and quashed the order of reversion as well as the order of handing over of charge. Hence, this Writ Petition.

(3.) MR A.R. Dash, Learned Counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 contended that vide interim Order Dated 9.7.1992 passed in O.A. No. 696/92 it was clearly stated that Opposite Party No. 2, D.C. Mohanty, had not been promoted in the vacancy of Nakul Mahakud and on reinstatement of Nakul Mahakud, if one post of Forester became surplus, the last man in the cadre of Foresters should have been reverted. The Respondent -Petitioners never brought to the notice of the Tribunal that Opposite Party No. 2 was the last man in the cadre at the time of final disposal of the earlier O.A. on 21.7.2005. Even though the counter had been filed, nothing was brought on record to show that Opposite Party No. 2 was the last man in the cadre of Foresters. Even during hearing of the subsequent O.A. No. 629(C)/07 there was no indication as to whether Opposite Party No. 2 was the last incumbent in the cadre of Foresters as on 23.2.2007. Vacancy position in the month of November, 2006 at Patnagarh (K.L.) Division, which was not denied by the Petitioners, was seven in number. The affidavit dated 16.4.2006 filed by the Petitioners reveals that there was a DPC meeting in 2004 wherein the case of the Opposite Party No. 2 was not considered due to pendency of O.A. No. 696/92 It cannot be said that in 2007 the Opposite Party No. 2 was the last man in the cadre when he was reverted in 2007. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Petitioners to revert Opposite Party No. 2 in 2007. In the counter affidavit dated 1.8.1992 filed by the D.F.O., Patnagarh (K.L.) Division in the earlier O.A., it was stated that in pursuance of the Order Dated 29.01.1988, the DPC had prepared a list for Patnagarh (K.L.) Division consisting of 27 employees according to their seniority. Out of 27 employees, the DPC considered the cases of 14 numbers of employees, which was twice the number of available vacancies and out of the said 14 numbers of Forest Guards and Orderly Forest Guards, the DPC selected 7 numbers of Forest Guards and Orderly Forest Guards suitable for promotion to the cadre of Foresters and recommended them to be appointed in the said cadre. It is for the said reason that the suitability of Opposite Party No. 2 had already been found as back as in 1989 by a duly constituted DPC, but his case was not considered in the subsequent DPC meeting held in 2004 for the purpose of promotion to the cadre of Foresters. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to dismissed.