STATE OF ORISSA Vs. KALI CH.RATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar, in O.A. No. 1329 of 1989 dated 15.2.1999 is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(2.) OPPOSITE party no.1 was the applicant before the Tribunal. The case of the opposite party no.1 is that he being a Matriculate joined the Army on 4.8.1960 and was discharged therefrom on 12.11.1964. During the tenure of his service in the Army, he completed Class -II Course (Mechanic). He then joined the post of Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police (Mech.) on 1.3.1966. He completed Grade -II Mechanic Course in 1984. Though he had not completed Grade -I course, he was exempted from completing the same by the Director General of Police by order dated 29.1.1980 making him eligible for consideration for promotion and he was allowed to officiate as S.I. (Mech.) by Order dated 29.1.1971. He continued as such till 24.7.1972. Again, in another spell he was allowed to officiate as S.I. on 17.5.1979 and continued till 17.5.1986. During this period, he also officiated as Inspector (Mech.) from 21.5.1980 to 4.6.1980. The Trade Test for the purpose of promotion to the post of Inspector was held in 1985 wherein he and opposite parties 2 and 3 had appeared. All the three of them failed in the Trade Test. The Central Selection Board, which was held in 1986, found opposite parties 2 and 3 suitable for promotion, but did not find opposite party no.1 suitable for such promotion. As a result of the above, he officiating then as S.I. was reverted and challenging such reversion he approached the Tribunal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State assailing the impugned judgment submitted that opposite party no.1 having failed in the Trade Test and he having been found unsuitable for promotion to the post of S.I. (Mech.) by the Selection Board, the Tribunal should not have directed to give him promotion solely on the basis that opposite party no.1 has been discriminated. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the State that though all the opposite parties were declared unsuccessful in the Trade Test, the Central Selection Board found opposite parties 2 and 3 to be suitable for promotion whereas opposite party no.1 was not found suitable for promotion. The Tribunal should not have sat in appeal over the decision of the Central Selection Board while allowing the Original Application. Learned counsel for opposite party no.1 in support of the impugned judgment submitted that since all the opposite parties were unsuccessful in the Trade Test, the Central Selection Board should not have found opposite party no.1 to be unsuitable and opposite parties 2 and 3 suitable for promotion.