SIBA KUMAR MISRA Vs. THE STATE OF ORISSA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ORISSA, LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER assails in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the promotion of opposite parties 3, 4 and 5 as Assistant Labour Commissioners by overlooking his claim and has asked for a direction to opposite parties 1 and 2 to consider his claim for promotion retrospectively with effect from the date when the impugned promotions were given. He has also challenged the gradation list in Annexure -7 in which opposite parties 3 to 5 have been shown above him.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner be was appointed as Assistant Labour Officer on 5.10.1956 while opposite parties 4 and 6 were so appointed in 1959 and opposite party No. 5 in May, 1959. Petitioner was confirmed as Labour Officer with effect from 7 -6 -1960 while opposite party No. 3 was confirmed as Labour Officer on 19 -7 -1960 Opposite parties 4 and 6 were promoted as Labour Officers in August, 1960 and opposite party No. 5 was promoted in December, 1960 In May. 1963, as a result of disciplinary action, opposite party No. 6 was reverted to the post of Assistant Labour Officer. In March, 1966, the post of Labour Officer was declared as Gazetted, in that year, there was a vacancy in the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner which is a promotional post from the rank of Labour Officer. Names of Petitioner, opposite parties 3, 4 and 5 were sent to the State Public Service Commission but the Commission placed the Petitioner below opposite party No. 3 on the basis of the date of appointment as Labour Officer and overlooking the date of confirmation. Petitioner's name was not recommended and opposite parties 3 and 4 were promoted as Assistant Labour Commissioners in July, 1966. Petitioner preferred an appeal on 8 -8 -1966 against this. On 20th Nov, 1966, opposite party No. 5 was promoted as Assistant Labour Commissioner. Promotion was admissible on the basis of seniority subject to merit. No reasons were given for supersession nor was the matter placed before the Chief Minister of the State as required under the Instructions issued in terms of Rule 14 of the rules of Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution.

(3.) THE following contentions have been advanced on behalf of the Petitioner at the hearing: