Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1 (ORI)

Ramachandra Samal v. State of Orissa

2013-01-03

A.PATTANAYAK

body2013
ORDER AMARANANDA PATTANAYAK, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. Facts of this O.A., bereft of unnecessary details, are that the applicant was appointed as a Para Medical Worker in the Leprosy Eradication Unit, Balasore, and was allowed to undergo diploma in health education training at FWTR centre, Bombay, alongwith three others, on deputation basis, and obtained such certificate in 1992. A gradation list as on 31.12.1994 was circulated vide letter dated 4.8.1992 indicating the applicant at SI. No. 607, whereas opposite parties No.3 and 4 were placed at SI. No.655 and 763 respectively. However, DPC dated 7.6.1997 for selection as Block Extension Educator selected opposite parties No.3 and 4 and promoted them as per order No. 3421 dated 2.8.1997, (Annexure-4), ignoring the seniority of the applicant as indicated in gradation list as on 3.12.1991 circulated vide letter dated 4.8.1992, (Annexure-2), though there are no rules for selection as Block Extension Educators. In this O.A., the applicant has primarily prayed that he be considered for appointment as Block Extension Educator from the date opposite parties No.3 and 4 were appointed. 2. Counter dated 2.1.1998 has been filed in this case stating that the principle of seniority-cum-merit was followed in such promotions and that weightage was given to diploma in Health Education and five years CCRs, and on the basis of such marks, as per details in comments on paragraph 6.4 in the counter, opposite parties No.3 and 4 secured higher marks than the applicant and were thus selected. 3. Rejoinder dated 8.4.98 has been filed mainly stating that when the principle of seniority cum merit has admittedly been followed by the DPC dated 7.6.1997, the seniority of the applicant cannot be ignored. Counter dated 11.12.1998 to the rejoinder has been filed explaining the weightage and marks assigned by the DPC to qualification of Diploma in Health Education and higher marks awarded for outstanding, CCRs, followed by marks for very good CCRs and good CCRs. A copy of the DPC proceeding dated 7.6.1997 has also been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter to rejoinder. 5. It is now to be decided if the applicant has a reasonable claim for selection as Block Extension Educator from the date his alleged juniors in .the gradation list were selected. 6. Heard both parties. A copy of the DPC proceeding dated 7.6.1997 has also been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter to rejoinder. 5. It is now to be decided if the applicant has a reasonable claim for selection as Block Extension Educator from the date his alleged juniors in .the gradation list were selected. 6. Heard both parties. Learned counsel for the applicant mainly submits that the DPC having admittedly adopted the principle of seniority-cum-merit, the applicant who was senior in the gradation list dated 4.8.1992 cannot be relegated to a lower position vis-a-vis opposite parties No.3 and 4. Learned Addl. Standing counsel submits that though it has been stated in the DPC proceeding dated 7.6.1997 that the principle of seniority cum merit has been observed, comments on paragraph 6.4 of the O.A. in the counter and the said DPC proceedings indicate that the principle of merit cum seniority with due regard to seniority has actually been followed in practice and as the records of respondents No.3 and 4 were better they have been selected and promoted. After hearing all parties, it is apparent that though it has been stated in the DPC proceedings dated 7.6.1997 that the principle of seniority cum merit has been adopted by the DPC, in actual practice as evident from parawise comments in the counter on paragraph 6.4 of the O.A., and the OPC proceedings dated 7.6.1997 that the principle of merit cum suitability with due regard to seniority as prescribed in Rule 3 of the OCS (Criteria for Promotion) Rules, 1992 has actually been adopted in that weightage in terms of marks has been given to merit, i.e. CCRs and qualifications. As respondent No.3 and 4 admittedly had better records, they were selected and allowed to continue as Block Extension Educators. In view of the said position, and as in actual practice the principle of merit cum suitability with due regard to seniority has been followed by DPC dated 7.6.1997, no case made out in favour of the applicant. With these orders, the O.A. is disposed of. O.A. disposed of.