Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.R. Sarangi, Savitri Ratho, JJ.
Rupanwita Panda - Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa and others - Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) NO. 12033 of 2014
Decided On : 17-05-2022
Seniority - Employment Dispute - Orissa Administrative Tribunal - 1989 Employment Exchange Appointment - Seniority Dispute - Final Gradation List - Doctrine of Waiver, Acquiescence, and Estoppel
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 02.05.2014 passed by the tribunal and the consequential gradation list. The petitioner also sought direction to fix her seniority over opposite party no.5, who was appointed along with her in 1989. The petitioner's seniority was fixed in 2001 and 2007, and opposite party no.5 did not object at the time. The tribunal, without considering the finality of the seniority, directed for correction of the gradation list.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tribunal erred in not considering the finality of the seniority and in passing the order without taking into consideration subsequent developments. The court also found that the original application filed by opposite party no.5 was barred by limitation and should have been dismissed.
Issues: The issues involved the finality of the seniority, non-compliance with the principle of natural justice, and the limitation period for filing the original application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tribunal's order was erroneous due to non-application of mind, failure to consider subsequent developments, and entertaining the original application beyond the limitation period.
Final Decision: The court quashed the tribunal's order and directed the maintenance of the petitioner's seniority over opposite party no.5, pursuant to the final gradation list prepared in 2001, and granted all benefits due to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. Sarangi, J.
1. The petitioner, who was opposite party no.5 in O.A. No. 669 of 2010, which was filed by the present opposite party no.5 before Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 02.05.2014 passed by the tribunal under Annexure-11 to the writ petition and also the consequential gradation list prepared and communicated vide letter dated 03.06.2014 under Annexure-12 to the writ petition. The petitioner also seeks direction to the State-opposite parties to fix her seniority over and above present opposite party no.5, who was the applicant before the tribunal, as was before.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that in the year 1989 names of the petitioner, opposite party no.5 and others were sponsored by the employment exchange for appointment in the post of Junior Coach in different disciplines under the Directorate of Sports. After following due procedure of selection, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Coach in the discipline of Athletics and opposite party No.5 was appointed as Junior Coach in the discipline of Volleyball. One Rashmiranjan Samantray was appointed as Junior Coach in the discipline of Basketball. The petitioner, opposite party no.5 and Rashmiranjan Samantaray were appointed, vide order dated 27.09.1989, and opposite party No.5 was shown junior to the petitioner.
2.1 After getting the order of appointment, the petitioner joined in her post and continued as such without any interruption. While she was so continuing, the petitioner got an offer from Sports Authority of India (in short “SAI”), vide order dated 17.09.1992, to join as Athletic Coach. Consequentially, the petitioner was relieved by the Director of Sports with effect from 16.09.1992 to join as coach in Regional Office, SAI. On reporting before the Regional Director, SAI, the petitioner was directed to join as a coach in SAI at Cuttack. Due to some personal problem, the petitioner preferred not to join as coach in SAI at Cuttack. Instead, on 19.09.1992, she requested the Director, Sports & Youth Servicesopposite party no.2 to allow her to re-join as a Junior Coach and treat the period of her absence as leave, besides requesting the SAI authorities to cancel their order dated 17.09.1992.
2.2 Considering the grievance of the petitioner, the Director, Sports & Youth Services, vide order dated 21.09.1992, permitted the petitioner to re-join in the post of Junior Coach, Athletics and, vide letter dated 22.09.1992, intimated this fact to the Regional Director, SAI requesting him to recall the order dated 17.09.1992, by which the petitioner was directed to resume the duty of Athletic Coach at SAI, Cuttack. The Director, vide order dated 23.12.1992, allowed the period of absence of the petitioner from 17.09.1992 to 21.09.1992 as earned leave and regularized the said period. Present opposite party no.5 had not objected, when the petitioner was placed above him at the time of her appointment and also the rejoining of the petitioner on 22.09.1992 as Junior Coach under the Directorate of Sports, Orissa. As such, the petitioner continued without any interruption.
2.3 After lapse of 9 years, i.e., in the year 2001, in order to maintain the inter se seniority among the Junior Coaches in the Directorate of Sports, a provisional gradation list was published and it was also communicated to all Junior Coaches appointed in the Directorate, including opposite party no.5, vide letter dated 12.02.2001, inviting objection if any to the said provisional gradation list within 30 days from the date of its issuance. In the said provisional gradation list dated 12.02.2001, the petitioner was shown to be senior to opposite party no.5 and, as such, the name of the petitioner was found place at sl. no.32, whereas the name of opposite party no.5 was found place at sl. no. 33. Opposite party no.5 accepted the said position in the gradation list and did not file any objection to the sai
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
