Back
2009 Supreme(Ori) 781
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Sanju Panda, I.M. Quddusi, JJ.
AMIYA KANTI PATNAIK AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (C) No. 3771 of 2003
Decided On : 02-04-2009
Parity can only be claimed within a class, and the promotion of a candidate against a reserved post does not constitute discrimination against candidates from a different class.
Headnote:
Seniority - Promotion - Inspector of Central Excise - Central Administrative Tribunal - O.A. No. 509 of 1998 - Inspectors - Superintendent of Central Excise - Scheduled Caste - SC candidate - Discrimination - Zone of Consideration - Vigilance Inquiry
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, directly recruited as Inspectors of Central Excise, alleged that their promotion was ignored in favor of a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate. The seniority between direct recruits and promotees was the subject of litigation before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the promotion of the SC candidate did not discriminate against the petitioners, as the SC candidate was selected against a reserved post meant for SC. The court also upheld the extension of the zone of consideration and the subsequent promotion of the SC candidate.
Issues: The issues revolved around the seniority and promotion of the petitioners in comparison to the SC candidate, the extension of the zone of consideration, and the legality of the SC candidate's promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that parity can only be claimed within a class, and a person belonging to a different class cannot claim parity. It also emphasized that the promotion of the SC candidate against a reserved post did not constitute discrimination against the petitioners.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
I.M. Quddusi, J. - This writ petition has been filed against the impugned JUDGMENT dated 21.3.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 509 of 1998 dismissing the same being devoid of merit.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioners were directly recruited as Inspector of Central Excise in the year 1975. One late D. Naik, who belonged to Scheduled Caste community, was promoted to the post of Inspector of Central Excise on the recommendation of the DPC held on 18.9.1975 and he joined the post on 24.11.1975 but he was promoted to the post of Superintendent of Central Excise (Group-B) on 14.12.1988. It is alleged that the case of the Petitioners for promotion was ignored.
3. The seniority between the direct recruit and the promotees to the post of Inspector of Central Excise and Customs was the subject matter of litigation before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 62-71 of 1987 which was disposed of on 10.4.1989 observing that the seniority with regard to Inspector of Central Excise will be computed taking into consideration the date of joining. It is alleged that since the Petitioners' date of joining is prior to the date of joining of late D. Naik, they all were seniors to late D. Naik and, therefore, the promotion of late D. Naik prior to the consideration of their case for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Central Excise Group B is illegal.
4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3, it has been submitted that the seniority list issued vide order dated 27.4.1998 has been rescinded and the seniority position as on 1.6.79 of the Inspectors was restored to the position as was existing prior to the issue of the order dated 27.4.98. However, the opposite parties revised the seniority and two seniority lists have been published, one showing the position of the Inspectors as on 1.6.79 and the second showing the seniority position of Inspectors as on 1.1.90 and both the lists were circulated amongst the Inspectors. But neither the Petitioners nor the Inspectors had submitted any representation against the said seniority lists. However, when Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 made representation in the month of April, 1998, the opposite parties considering the same partially modified the seniority list of Inspectors as on 1.6.97.
5. Further, in respect of promotion of late D. Naik, it has been submitted that he was selected against the vacancy reserved for SC by extending the zone of consideration as the lone SC official within the normal zone was not considered from vigilance angle. The said D. Naik also died within one year of his promotion and the said vacancy was filled up by one Sri Ramesh Ch. Choudhury, who is senior to the Petitioners. Therefore, the Petitioners should have no grievance against him.
It has further been submitted in the counter affidavit that late D. Naik, was rightly promoted on 14.12.98 by virtue of his SC status against SC roster point No. 29 reserved for SC category superseding the Petitioners since the Petitioners belong to general category.
6. It is not necessary to go further in respect of the facts as we find that since the Petitioners belong to general category, they cannot have any parity with a SC candidate and, therefore, even if a SC candidate was junior to the Petitioners and was considered against the post reserved for SC category, it cannot be said that there was any discrimination.
7. The plea of the Petitioners that in case zone of consideration would not have been extended, the post reserved for SC category would have been de reserved and in that case one of the Petitioners could have been selected is only an imaginary plea of the Petitioners.'
It is the settled principle of law that parity can be claimed only within a class. No person can claim parity with a person belonging to a different class. Scheduled Caste candidate has been selected against the reserved post meant for SC. The Petitioner
