The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.39566 of 2021 Mayadhar Sahoo Petitioner Mr. Krishna Chandra Sahoo, Advocate …. -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Tarun Patnaik, ASC for O.P. Nos.1 & 2 Ms. Soma Nanda, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pratik Dash, Advocate for O.P. No.3 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 31.07.2024 Order No. 06. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition invoking provisions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to opposite party nos.1 & 2 to effect necessary amendment in the entry made in the Service Book and with the following prayer(s):- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court graciously be pleased to admit this application, issue rule Nisi and called upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the following directions should not be made absolute:- i. Direct to incorporate necessary revision in the col. 10 of 3rd and 4th page of the service book in accordance with order no.22 dtd 18.01.2018 in W.P.(C) No.14292 of 2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa and order no.21 dtd. 29.07.2010 of Hon’ble Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.347/2017. And W.P.(C) No.39566 of 2021 Page 1 of 10 Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 3. Responding to an advertisement for recruitment of Junior Stenographers in the District of Nayagarh in the year 1994, the petitioner having applied became successful, and was placed at Serial No.5 in the merit list under the category of Socially and Economically Backward Classes (S.E.B.C.). Though the petitioner was placed at Serial No.5, the opposite party no.3, namely, Jugal Kishore Mishra, belonging to General Category, being placed at Serial No.6, was given appointment. 4. Being prejudiced, the petitioner approached the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack in O.A. No.2929 (C) of 1996, which was transferred and renumbered as O.A. No.1735 of 2002 before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under the provisions of 19 of the Odisha Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The said O.A. got disposed of on 30.04.2003 with the following observation: “***2. Since all the candidates in the select list placed above the applicant have already been appointed, this O.A. is disposed of with the direction that if there is an existing vacancy of Junior Stenographer at the disposal of the Collector, Nayagarh which is not earmarked for SC and ST then the applicant may be appointed against that vacancy. In case no such vacancy is available he may be adjusted against one such vacancy that may arise in future.” 5. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has been appointed as Junior Stenographer in the District of Panchayat Office, Nayagarh against an existing vacancy vide Memo No.1605 dated 10.09.2004. W.P.(C) No.39566 of 2021 Page 2 of 10 6. Office of the Collector, Nayagarh issued Letter no.1032 dated 08.06.2006 enclosing therewith final gradation list of P.A.s and Stenographers, wherein the name of the petitioner has been shown below the opposite party no.3. The date of entry in the Government Service in respect of opposite party no.3 has been shown as 26.10.1995, whereas the same has been shown as 10.09.2004 in respect of the petitioner. 7. Challenging the same, the petitioner again approached the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.347 of 2007,
Decision
which came to be disposed of on 29.07.2010, wherein the following has been observed: “*** Pursuant to said order dated 30.04.2003 the applicant was appointed as Jr. Stenographer vide order dated 10.09.2004. Even though the applicant was appointed much later than said Jugal Kishore Mishra who was appointed on 20.10.1995 since the applicant’s name finds place just above Jugal Kishore Mishra in the merit list and both of them got appointment on the basis of that merit list, the applicant’s name ought to have been placed above Jugal Kishore Mishra in the gradation list on the basis of the provision of Rule-20 of the Orissa District and Sub-ordinate Offices Stenographer’s Service (Recruitment and Condition of Service of Stenographers) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which provides:- “(1) The relative seniority of each Junior Stenographer in a cadre shall be determined with reference to his position in the select list published under Sub-rule (4) of Rule-8. Candidates appointed under Rules-18, 19 and 21 shall, subject to Sub-rule(2) take their seniority below the Junior Stenographers recruited in that year under Rule-11.” As such since the name of the applicant finds place above Jugal Kishore Mishra in the merit list even though he was appointed in the year 1995 and the applicant was appointed in 2004 since both were appointed on the basis of one and W.P.(C) No.39566 of 2021 Page 3 of 10 the same merit list, the applicant’s name ought to have been placed above Jugal Kishore Mishra in the gradation list. *** Considering the submissions made by the counsel for both the parties and keeping in view the fact that in spite of service of notice on Jugal Kishore Mishra/Respondent No.3 did not bother to appear before this Tribunal to place his case, both the applicant as well as Jugal Kishore Mishra were selected to be appointed as Jr. Stenographer on the basis of one and same selection process and name of the applicant finds place above Jugal Kishore Mishra in the merit list, in my considered view keeping Rule-20 of the Orissa District and Sub-ordinate Offices Stenographer (Recruitment and Condition of Service of Service Stenographers) Rules, 1988 the name of the applicant ought to be above Jugal Kishore Mishra in the gradation list. In view of the above order dtd.13.02.2007 (Annexure-5) is quashed and order dtd. 8.6.2006 (Annexure-3) which is the final gradation list is only quashed in respect of applicant as well as Jugal Kishore Mishra and in that view of the matter the respondent authorities are directed to recast the gradation list, in conformity with the provisions of the Orissa District and Sub-ordinate Offices Stenographer’s (Recruitment and Condition of Service of Service Stenographers) Rules, 1988 and carry out necessary correction in the final gradation list. It is also directed that entire exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of communication of this order.” 8. The opposite party no.3 challenged the aforesaid order before this Court by way of writ petition being W.P.(C) No.14292 of 2010, wherein the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.01.2018 made the following observation: “*** Petitioner in this writ petition assails the order dated 29.07.2010 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.347 of 2007 wherein the Tribunal directed the authorities to recast the gradation list in conformity with the provisions of the Orissa District and Sub-ordinate Offices Stenographer’s Service (Recruitment W.P.(C) No.39566 of 2021 Page 4 of 10 and Condition of Service of Stenographers) Rules, 1988 and carryout necessary correction in the final gradation list. The Tribunal also directed that the entire exercise shall be the date of completed within communication of the order. The impugned order was stayed on 19th August, 2010. The same continues again on 31.07.2015. Thereafter the said interim order has not been extended. two months from Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.3 produced a office order dated 27.10.2014 issued by Project Director, DRDA, Nayagarh wherein it was reflected that petitioner already joined to the post of Orissa Revenue Service from the cadre of Senior Stenographer and he was relieved from his duties on 27.10.2014 to join his new place of posting on promotion in a higher cadre. In view of the above changed circumstances, the writ petition has become infructuous without prejudice to the rights of the parties. It is open to the authority to take consequential steps.” 9. A revised gradation list of Senior Stenographer of Nayagarh District pursuant to aforesaid order dated 18.01.2018 of this Court confirming the order dated 29.07.2010 passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.347 of 2007, has been prepared, wherein the following is depicted:- “ REVISED GRADATION LIST OF SENIOR STENOGRAPHERS OF NAYAGARH DISTRICT AS PER ORDER NO.22 DT.18.01.2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.14292 OF 2010 OF HON’BLE HIGH COURT & ORDER NO.21 DT. 29.07.2010 OF HON’BLE ODISHA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR IN O.A. NO.347/2007 Name Sl. the No. employee Year recruitme nt Permanent Address Qualif icatio n Date of Birth Remarks of of Date of appointment to the present grade Date of entry into Govt. Service 6 20.09.1 995 7 03.11.1998 8 1995 9 1 1 2 2 Prasanta Kumar Behera 3 02.12.19 71 4 +3 Arts Fakir Charan 14.05.19 68 +3 Arts 5 Barasingh, Ramadasp ur, P.O.- Godisahi, Cuttack At/P.O.- Malisahi, 22.09.1 995 23.08.2003 1995 W.P.(C) No.39566 of 2021 Page 5 of 10 Parida Dillip Kumar Sahoo 15.03.19 66 B.A. Mayadhar Sahoo 15.06.19 66 B.A. Jugal Kishore Mishra 29.06.19 62 B.A. 3 4 5 Via- Mahipur, District- Nayagarh Chandra Sekharpur P.O.- Gopalpur P.S.- Ranpur, District- Nayagarh At/P.O.- Belapada Patna P.S.- Gania, District- Nayagarh At- Ladukeswa rpur, P.O.- Bhatasahi, Nayagarh 20.09.1 995 06.06.2005 1995 26.10.1 995 22.06.2009 1995 26.10.1 995 22.06.2009 1995 ” 10. Since the gradation list has been prepared by placing the name of the petitioner at Serial No.4 and the opposite party no.3 at Serial No.5, no “special steps” have been taken by the authority concerned to effect necessary changes/amendment against entry at Serial No.10 of the Service Book. Though, the petitioner approached the authority concerned for such necessary changes in the entry against Serial/Column No.10 of page 3 of the service book, the same has been turned down vide Letter No.1604 dated 01.10.2021 by the Additional District Magistrate, Nayagarh with reason that “there is no scope for entry the date of joining in Column 10 of 3rd and 4th page of Service Book”. 11. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 reiterating the stand of the Additional District Magistrate, Nayagarh that there is no scope for changing the date of entry into the Government Service, which is reflected in the Service Book as W.P.(C) No.39566 of 2021 Page 6 of 10 10.09.2004. Even though in the gradation list the date of entry into Government Service being shown as 26.10.1995, the position of the petitioner has been shown at Serial No.4, whereas the opposite party no.3 has been placed at Serial no.5. The stance of the opposite party no.2 is as follows: That, in reply to the averments made in Para-8 of the “8. Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that, as per Order No.21 dtd.29.07.2010 of the Hon’ble OAT, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.347/2007 and Order No.22 dtd.18.01.2018 in W.P.(C) No.14292 of 2010, the final Gradation List of Jr. Stenographers has been revised & the petitioner has been placed above Jugal Kishrore Mishra in the Gradation List. The entry into Govt. Service of Mayadhar Sahoo on 26.10.1995 was mentioned only for the purpose of recasting him in the Gradation List above the Opp. Party No.3 who joined the Govt. Service on 26.10.1995. That, in reply to the averments made in Para-9 of the “9. Writ petition, it is humbly submitted that, necessary entry has been made in Page No.13 of the original Service Book of the petitioner only for revision of final Gradation List of Jr. Stenographers & placement of the petitioner above the Opp. Party no.3 is as per the order of this Hon’ble Court. 10. That, in reply to the averments made in Para-10 of the Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that, the original Service Book of the petitioner was opened on 29.11.2004 by the District Panchayat Officer, Nayagarh & in Col.10 of page 3 of his Service Book the date of entry into Govt. Service had been mentioned as 10.09.2004 A.N. which was his actual date of joining in Govt. Service.” 12. Mr. Krishna Chandra Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the gradation list has been revised by showing the name of the petitioner above the name of the opposite party no.3 by accepting his date of entry into Government Service as 26.10.1995, non-consideration of amendment to be W.P.(C) No.39566 of 2021 Page 7 of 10 carried out against the entry made at Serial No.10 of the page 3 of the Service Book and also relevant entry at page No.4, the petitioner is prejudiced. 12.1. He submitted that the petitioner was intimated by Office of the Collector, Nayagarh vide Letter No.1294 dated 04.08.2020 that his name was recommended for promotion to the post of Odisha Revenue Service, Group-B Officer with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of opposite party no.3, but the Revenue and Disaster Management Department issued an order dated 09.11.2021 to the effect that his application merits no consideration as the petitioner has not worked for the ten years in the Ministerial Cadre as on 01.01.2012 in terms of Rule 6(1)(a) of the Odisha Revenue Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2011. 12.2. He further submitted that though the petitioner has been shown to have joined in the post of Junior Stenographer being fixed notionally at par with the date of joining of opposite party no.3, he was deprived of being considered for the promotional post. 13. Mr. Tarun Patnaik, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for State-opposite party nos.1 & 2 submitted that in terms of orders passed by this Court, necessary amendments have been made in the gradation list and also the fact of revision of gradation list has been reflected at page 13 of the Service Book. 13.1. In such view of the matter, there was no requirement for effecting any change in the entry against Column No.10 of page 3 and related entry appearing at page 4 of the Service Book. The W.P.(C) No.39566 of 2021 Page 8 of 10 apprehension of the petitioner, as contended in the writ petition, is without comprehension. 14. Ms. Soma Nanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Pratik Dash, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 vehemently opposed for effecting amendment in the Service Book. 15. Diligently considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is revealed that the fact of revised gradation list pursuant to order of this Court dated 18.01.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.14292 of 2010 has been reflected at page 13 of the Service Book. As there is no dispute about such a fact, the same would have been rectified and correctly against the relevant entries shown at page no.3 & 4 of the Service Book. 16. The learned Additional Standing Counsel has not demonstrated any impediment in carrying out such amendment pursuant to direction of this Court as stated above and also this Court does not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for opposite party no.3 in view of the fact the opposite party no.3 has not questioned his position in the revised gradation list. 17. In such view of the matter, interest of justice would be best served if opposite parties shall take necessary steps to effect the amendment/change at page nos.3 & 4 of the Service Book by showing the date of entry into Government Service as per the revised gradation list. 18. Needless to say such gradation list has been redrawn pursuant to order dated 18.01.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.14292 of W.P.(C) No.39566 of 2021 Page 9 of 10 2010, which is filed at the behest of the present opposite party no.3 challenging the order dated 29.07.2010 passed in O.A. No.347 of 2007 by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal. 19. In terms of the aforesaid observation and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Laxmikant (M.S. Raman) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 02-Aug-2024 10:57:12 W.P.(C) No.39566 of 2021 Page 10 of 10