Skip to content


Upendra Prasad Das Vs. the State of Orissa and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberO.J.C. No. 912 of 1978
Judge
Reported in1985(I)OLR473
ActsOrissa Information Service Rules, 1973 - Rules 3 and 4
AppellantUpendra Prasad Das
RespondentThe State of Orissa and ors.
Appellant AdvocateBijaya Mohanty, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateD.P. Sahoo, Standing Counsel for O. Ps. 1 and 2, ;S. Das, Adv. for O. P. No. 3 and ;M. Misra, Adv. for O. P. No. 4
DispositionApplication allowed
Excerpt:
.....concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the act, 1972 or the act, 1951. [air 2002 orissa 130 overruled]. -- state financial corporations act, 1951. section 29; discharge of loan orissa forest act (14 of 1972), section 56 confiscation of vehicle - held, the authorities under section 56 of the orissa forest act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of orissa state financial corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the orissa state financial corporation and the loan had not been liquidated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle..........to art. 309 of the constitution of india the governer of orissa framed the orissa information service rules, 1973 (hereafter referred to as the 'rules') which came into force on 10.7.73 regulating the recruitment and appointment to the orissa information service. on 10.11.74 opposite party no. 1 forwarded the names of fifty officers including the petitioner to the public service commission for consultation, but against the petitioner's name it was noted that he was not eligible for promotion as per rule 12 (a) (1) of the rules. the petitioner's grievance is that because of the aforesaid endorsement, the public service commission did not agree to his continuance in the post of additional production officer and accordingly he was reverted to the non-gazatted post of senior translation.....
Judgment:

B.N. Misra, J.

1. This writ application arises in the following circumstances. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Translation Assistant on 20.11. 68, vide Annexure 1 (i). On 9. 3. 71 he was promoted as Senior Translation Assistant, vide Annexure 2. His next promotion was to the post of Additional Production Officer on ad-hoc basis with effect from 8. 6. 73. He received further extensions of his ad-hoc appointment till the last renewal for six months on 10. 8. 77, vide Annexure 4. In the meanwhile under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India the Governer of Orissa framed the Orissa Information Service Rules, 1973 (hereafter referred to as the 'Rules') which came into force on 10.7.73 regulating the recruitment and appointment to the Orissa Information Service. On 10.11.74 opposite party No. 1 forwarded the names of fifty officers including the petitioner to the Public Service Commission for consultation, but against the petitioner's name it was noted that he was not eligible for promotion as per rule 12 (a) (1) of the Rules. The petitioner's grievance is that because of the aforesaid endorsement, the Public Service Commission did not agree to his continuance in the post of Additional Production Officer and accordingly he was reverted to the non-gazatted post of Senior Translation Assistant on 2.2.78, vide Anaexure 6. According to the petitioner his case has been improperly dealt with in gross violation of the statutory rules governing appointments to the Orissa Information Service. The petitioner has prayed that the impugned order of reversion (Annexure 6) should be quashed and he should be confirmed in the post of Additional Production Officer with effect from 8.6.73, the date on which he was initially appointed to the said post.

2. The State of Orissa represented by the Secretary, Home Department and the Director of Public Relations are opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively. Their stand is that the reversion of the petitioner under Annexure 6 was proper inasmuch as the petitioner had not been confirmed and had not put in seven years' service in the lower post from which he had been promoted to the post of Additional Production Officer. The entry against the petitioner's name to the effect that he was not eligible is sought to be justified on the same grounds.

3. In their respective counters opposite parties 3 and 4 support the stand of opposite parties 1 and 2 and have further stated that the reversion of the petitioner is justified as his appointment as Additional Production Officer was only on adhoc basis and he had not put in. seven years' service to be eligible under Rule 12(a) (11 to hold the said post.

4. The learned Standing Counsel and leaned counsel appearing for opposite parties 3 and 4 submitted that under clauses (1) and (2} of Rule 12 (a) an officer shall be eligible for promotion to the different classes of the service only if he has been in the post from which promotion is to be made for at least seven years by the end of the preceding year in which the Committee meets and he has been confirmed in the post from which promotion is considered. The petitioner, it is argued, did not satisfy the aforesaid two requirments and as such was not eligible to continue in the post of Additional Production Officer to which he had been promoted. Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has, on the other hand, pointed that the aforesaid argument overlooks the provisions contained in Rule 3 and that the. eligibility criteria laid down in clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 12(a) are not attracted in respect of officers coming under Rule 3(3). In this contest it would be useful to extract Rule 3.

'3. Orissa Information Service shall consist of_(1) Persons appointed to the Service in a substantive or officiating capacity under clause (3) of this rule.

(2) Persons appointed to the Service in a substantive or officiating capacity after such date, either by direct recruitment or by departmental promotion, as laid down in the Rule 5.

(3) The initial constitution of the Service shall be the existing personnel in different posts in the Home (Public Relations) Department as specified in the Rule 4{c) who will be absorved in different classes of Service in consultation with the commission. '

In the present case we are not concerned with clause (2) of Rule 3. Admittedly on the date the Rules came into force i. e. 10.7.1973, the petitioner was working as an Additional Production Officer on ad-hoc basis. Thereafter he continued given from time to time. Under clause (1) of Rule 3 the Orissa Information Service shall consist of persons appointed to the Service in a substantive or officiating capacity under clause (3) which provides that the initial constitution of the Service shall be the existing personnel in different posts specified in Rule 4(c). The post of Additional Production Officer is included in Rule 4 (c). Though petitioner was holding the post of Additional Production Officer on 10.7.1973 on ad-hoc basis it is conceded that be was holding that post in an officiating capacity. His case therefore comes squarely within Rule 3. He was one of the existing personal holding the post of Additional Production Officer in officiating capacity on the date of commencement of the Rules and therefore the initial constitution of the Orissa Information Service statutorily includes the petitioner. Accordingly, he, must be held entitled to be absorbed in the Service in consultation with the Public Service Commission and Rule 12 is not attracted to the facts of this case.

5. For the reasons stated above this writ application is allowed. Annexure 6 is hereby quashed. Further we direct that the case of the petitioner, who has been included in the Orissa Information Service at the initial constitution of the Service on 10. 7. 1973 by virtue of Rule 3(3) of the Rules, shall be forwarded to the Public Service Commission by opposite party No. 1 within three months from the date of this order. The Public Service Commission shall adjudge the suitability of the petitioner for absorption in the Service as enjoined in Rule 3(3) of the Rules and thereafter opposite party No. 1 shall give a suitable posting to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

G.B. Pattnaik, J.

6. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //