Orissa High Court
Draupadi Bindhani vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 3 March, 2023
Author: M.S. Raman
Bench: M.S. Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.C. (OAC) No.2527 of 2017
Draupadi Bindhani .... Petitioner
Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Proxy counsel on behalf
of Mr. Subhadutta Routray, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Nihar Kanta Praharaj, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
ORDER
03.03.2023 Order No.
02. 1. The Opposite Party No.4-Shantilata Pradhan and the opposite party No.5-Satyabati Pradhan stated to be juniors to the Petitioner, while working as Anganwadi worker, as per final gradation list prepared and published vide Office Order bearing No.557/SW, dated 20th March, 2017 issued from the office of the Collector, Kandhamal, Phulbani given promotion to the post of 'Lady Supervisor'. The Petitioner, approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following relief:-
"xxx xxx xxx xxx
iii) After hearing the parties be pleased to consider the case of the applicant fro promotion to the post of Lady Supervisor at least from the date of respondent No.4 and 5 were given promotion to such post and in the event no other post of Lady Supervisor is available then the promotion of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 be quashed"
2. The Learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal on 26th October, 2017 while issuing notice, directed for filing of // 2 // counter. On 20th September, 2022, when the matter was taken up, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that no counter has been filed by the Opposite Parties, accordingly, the matter stood adjourned.
3. The counter affidavit has come to be filed on behalf of Opposite Party Nos.2 (Collector, Kandhamal) and 3 (Child Development Project Officer, Kandamal) on 1st February, 2023. Copy of the said counter has also been served on learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the very same date.
4. Heard counsel for the respective parties.
5. Mr. N. K. Praharaj, learned Additional Government Advocate referring to Annexure-A/3, i.e., Office Order No.116/SW, dated 22nd January, 2021 submitted that since the Petitioner was under the category of "UR", she was selected for engagement of Lady Supervisor on contractual basis by District Selection Committee on 31st December, 2020. It is relevant to extract Para-8, 9 & 10 of the said counter hereunder:-
"xxx xxx xxx xxx
8. That, in reply to the averment made in para 6.9 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that Letter No.11454/22/07/2016 was clarification on selection of AWWs to the post of Supervisor and here Kandhamal district has a provision of only 10 supervisors to be promoted out of AWWs. The list published of all AWWs (Annexure-6 of complainant) including HSC passed and under HSC as well. Here, the petitioner enlisted at S1 No 171 of this list of all AWWs of this District. In the proceeding of 2017 promotion list of Lady Supervisors 02 no's were unreserved, 02 no's were from ST AWWs and 02 no's posts from LVLW as per govt. clarification were selected. The Petitioner belongs to SEBC category. The last person belongs to UR Category Page 2 of 3 // 3 // got promoted to Lady Supervisor was at S1 No.146. The list of eligible UR Candidates didn't extend to SI No.187. A copy of the Letter vide No.11454/22/07/2016 of Govt. in Women & Child Development Department along with proceedings of Departmental Selection Meeting dt. 23.03.2017 and Provisional Gradation List of Anganwadi Workers in Kandhamal District is annexed herewith as Annexure-C/3 series.
9. That, the averments made in para 6/10 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the opposite party No.4 & 5 are working as Lady Supervisor at present in Dist-Kandhamal being ST candidates and as per the provision of reserved criterion 02 (two) no's of ST candidate has been given promotion.
10. That, in reply to the averments made in para 6.11 of the writ petition, it is humble submitted that promotion given to the Opp. Party No.4 7 5 to the post of Supervisor is as per the provisions of law and the guidelines of the Government vide Annexure-C/3 series. The petitioner does not have requisite criterion though she was senior in gradation list. The Opposite Parties No.04 & 05 were belonging to the reserved criterion and hence, they got to be promoted. However, as submitted earlier, in the meantime the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Lady Supervisor on 22.01.2021 vide office Order No.116 dated 22.01.2021 vide Annexure-A/3."
6. In view of the position that the relief prayed for has been granted to the Petitioner, nothing remains for adjudication in the writ petition, hence the writ petition is disposed of.
(M.S. Raman) Judge Laxmikant Page 3 of 3