The main legal point established is the application of the 80 point roster in promotions, the relevance of departmental proceedings in considering promotions, and the adherence to the prescribed limitation period under the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.

The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order dated 22.06.2018 passed in O.A. No. 488 of 2009, by which the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar though held that Sahadeb Mallick was wrongly promoted to the post of Head Clerk on 01.05.2006 and the case of the petitioner should have been considered at that time, but, in view of the fact that a departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner at the time of DPC and the said proceeding concluded after his retirement from government service, and that the original application was not filed within the period of limitation, observed that no relief can be granted and by so observing dismissed the original application. He further seeks direction to the opposite parties to grant the benefit of promotion to him to the post of Head Clerk w.e.f. 01.06.2006 with all consequential service and financial benefits within a stipulated time.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner was working as Senior Clerk in the office of the Inspector of Schools, Bolangir since 13.11.1978 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2008. Being senior in the cadre of Senior Clerk, he was serving in the post of Junior Accountant at the time of retirement. In the year 2006, he became the senior most Senior Clerk of the circle and was eligible for the post of Head Clerk. But ignoring his seniority, the Inspector of Schools promoted one Sahadev Mahallik, a scheduled caste candidate, to the rank of Head Clerk on ad hoc basis, even though he was junior to the petitioner. There were five posts of head clerk under the Inspector of Schools, Bolangir Circle, Bolangir and one post of head clerk is meant for the office of the Inspector of Schools, Bolangir and other four posts for D.I. of Schools of Bolangir district. In view of the judgment of the apex Court in the case of R.K. Sabarwal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 1371, out of five posts, as per the roster point, one post is meant for S.T. and another for S.C. candidates, and rest three posts for general candidates. But the Inspector of Schools, Bolangir filled up all the five posts of Head Clerk by S.C. and S.T. candidates. Before 01.05.2006, four S.C. and S.T. category candidates were promoted to the rank of Head Clerk of them three belonged to S.T. and one belonged to S.C. category. Again, the Inspector Schools, Bolangir on the recommendation of the DPC promoted another S.C. candidate, namely, Sahedev Mallick to the rank of Head Clerk who joined on 01.05.2006, as per the DPC proceeding dated 28.04.2006.

But fact remains, 80 point roster came into force with effect from 21.04.1994 and, therefore, out of total five posts of Head Clerk as per roster, the first post will go to S.T. and the 4th post will go to scheduled caste and the rest three posts will be filled up by unreserved category candidates. As there was only five posts of Head Clerk after roster point no.5, it will not be worked out. After promotion of Sahadev Mallik, who belonged to scheduled caste category, to the post of Head Clerk on 01.05.2006, the petitioner had filed a representation to the Inspector of Schools, Bolangir on 17.05.2006. But, when no action was taken thereon by the Inspector of Schools, he had intimated the fact to the Director, Secondary Education by way of representation on 15.11.2006. After retirement, again the petitioner submitted another representation to the Inspector of Schools, Bolangir on 29.07.2008, which is still pending.

Since Sahadev Mallick, the S.C. candidate who is junior to the petitioner, was promoted to the 5th post of Head Clerk by the Inspector of Schools on a wrong notion of roster point, the right of the petitioner has been infringed and, therefore, he claims that he should be allowed retrospective promotion to the post of Head Clerk with effect from 01.05.2006. Therefore, the petitioner approached the tribunal by filing O