JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - Heard Shri S. Mallik for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. The Petitioner, who is a member of Scheduled Caste, by order No. 5731 dated 1-2-1990 (Annexure-I) came to be appointed as Senior Typist in the Directorate of Fisheries, Orissa, Cuttack. By Office Order No. 39379 dated 1-10-1991 (Annexure-3) he was reverted to the post of Junior Typist. Being aggrieved by the said order of reversion, he filed O.A. No. 1614 of 1991 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. Bhubaneswar. The Tribunal admitted the application, but in course of final hearing it found that the Petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal available to him under the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.C.A. Rules'). It accordingly dismissed the application by order dated 9-9-1997 (Annexure-4) Holding that it is barred by Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Tribunals while dismissing the application however gave liberty to the Petitioner to file appeal and the appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits within six months of its presentation. The Petitioner in stead of filing the appeal, has filed the present writ petition challenging the decision of the Tribunal.. 3. Section 20 of the Act provides that a Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed or all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redresses of grievances. No doubt, the order of reversion was appealable under the C.C.A. Rules and the Petitioner could have availed of the alternative remedy of filing appeal, but he did not do so. 4. The question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the application by finding fault with the Petitioner in not filing appeal. The Tribunal has clearly lost sight of the term 'ordinarily' occurring in Section 20 of the Act. The expression 'ordinarily' in Section 20(1) of the Act in the context means generally but not always or in all cases. In other words, normal rule is that the applicant should first avail of the departmental or other prescribed remedy available to him before applying to the Tribunal u/s 19 of the, Act. The expression 'ordinarily' in Section 20(1) of the Act in the context means generally but not always or in all cases. In other words, normal rule is that the applicant should first avail of the departmental or other prescribed remedy available to him before applying to the Tribunal u/s 19 of the, Act. Section 20 of the Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain an application, but it only requires an applicant to exhaust other remedies available to him under the relevant Service Rules. The Tribunal, for the reasons stated above, should not have dismissed the application of the Petitioner on the ground that he did not file any appeal. The Petitioner's application remained pending on the file of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal for about seven years without being disposed' of. In all fairness and in the ends of justice, the Tribunal ought to have disposed of the Petitioner's application on merits and it should not have relegated him after seven years to pursue the alternative remedy by filing appeal. 5. In the circumstances, we" have heard Shri Mallik on merits of the Petitioner's case of reversion. It may be stated that the reversion came in the' wake of report dated 24;;8.1991 (Annexure-2) of the Special Officer of-the Government in Harijan and Tribal Welfare Department. The inquiry' was conducted at the instance of one Ram Chandra Majhi, Junior Typist in the Directorate of Fisheries, Cuttack, who belongs to Scheduled Tribe. The Inquiry Officer, on examination of relevant records found that taster point No. 2 was required to be filled up by a Scheduled Tribe candidate. Although Ram. Chandra Majhi was at serial No. 19 of the gradation list, of the Junior Typists, his case was not taken into consideration' for promotional appointment to the rank of Senior Typist, despite the fact that he had completed eight years of service as laid down in Clause-13 of the Orissa Typist Service Rules, 1982. The Enquiry' Officer accordingly suggested Ram Chandra Majhi to be promoted against roster point No. 3, to which post, the Petitioner had been appointed on promotion by order No. 5731 dated 1.3-1990. In view of the report, in order to do justice to Ram Chandra Majhi, the Petitioner had to be reverted by the impugned order to the post of Junior Typist. In view of the report, in order to do justice to Ram Chandra Majhi, the Petitioner had to be reverted by the impugned order to the post of Junior Typist. By referring to the proviso contained in Section 6 of the Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975 Shri Mallick submits that exchange of reservation between scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, which was done in the present case, is not available to reserved vacancies in appointments in respect of Class-III- and Class-IV posts. It is relevant to note here that the proviso to Section 6 which states that nothing in Section 6 (Exchange of reservation between the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) shall apply to reserved vacancies in appointments in respect of Class-Ill and Class-IV posts and services, came to be inserted by Orissa Act 11 of 1992. The case of the Petitioner vis-a-vis Ram Chandra Majhi being an event prior to the commencement of Orissa Act 11 of 1992, the proviso has no application. For the reasons aforesaid, we, therefore, do not find any illegality in reverting the Petitioner from the post of,senior typist to the post of junior typist by the impugned office order at Annexure-3. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. No costs. R. K. Dash, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed