Ashok Kumar Sahoo Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Ashok Kumar Sahoo vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Disposition Petition succeeds Court Orissa Decided Feb 19, 2003

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/536081

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/536081
Court: Orissa High Court
Judge: B. Panigrahi and ;B.P. Das, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 19, 2003
Case Number: O.J.C. No. 3020 of 2002
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition succeeds

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section ...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition succeeds

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok Kumar Sahoo

Advocate Ashok Mohanty, ;D.K. Dey, ;C.K. Dey, ;S.N. Biswal, ;C.R. Satpathy and ;A.K. Das

Respondent

Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Advocate Tapan Ku. Mandal O.P. 3 and ;Madhumati Agarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel (Central), O.Ps 1 and 2

Legal References

Reported In: 2003(I)OLR410

Excerpt

.....and there would be no impediment. it is well settled that the definition of judgment in section 2(9) of c.p.c., is much wider and more liberal, intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to clause (a) to (w) of order 43, rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. amended section 100-a of the code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s...........has questioned about the propriety of the order dated 8.8.2000 passed by the central administrative tribunal. cuttack bench, cuttack in o.a. no. 571 of 1999 filed by the opp.party no. 3 against the opp.parties 1 and 2 without impleading the petitioner as a party therein whereby the tribunal directed to consider the application of opp. party no. 3.2. the opp.parties 1 and 2 issued an advertisement/ notification dated 29.7.1999 inviting application for the post of extra departmental sub-post master which was designated as gramina dak seva sub post master (hereinafter referred to as 'gdsspm') at tulasipur, banki sub-post office under cuttack division. the petitioner offered himself to be a candidate from o.b.c. community and claimed to have secured 64% of marks in board of secondary examination. it appears that opp. party no. 3 filed a case before the central administrative tribunal, being o.a. no. 571 of 1999 wherein he claimed that the post of gdsspm should be filled up from the s.t. category. in the absence of any candidate from s.t. category, preference should have been given to the scheduled caste community. but the opp.parties 1 and 2 without giving any preference to opp. party no. 3 were about to give appointment order to the present petitioner. thus, he has prayed against opp. party no. 2 to cancel the appointment, it given in favour of the petitioner. the opp.parties 1 and 2 before the tribunal have submitted in their counter by stating that the petitioner was already given appointment as gdsspm from o.b.c. category. the post of gdsspm was not exclusively meant for the scheduled caste persons as stated by opp.parties 1 and 2. but, however, the tribunal after rejecting the stand taken by them directed, that the application offered by the opp. party no. 3 was unreasonably and illegally rejected by the opp.parties 1 and 2. therefore, his application deserved consideration and accordingly the order should be passed with regard to his appointment.3......

Full Judgment

B. Panigrahi, J.

1. In this writ petition the petitioner has questioned about the propriety of the order dated 8.8.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 571 of 1999 filed by the opp.party No. 3 against the opp.parties 1 and 2 without impleading the petitioner as a party therein whereby the Tribunal directed to consider the application of opp. party No. 3.

2. The opp.parties 1 and 2 issued an advertisement/ notification dated 29.7.1999 inviting application for the post of Extra Departmental Sub-Post Master which was designated as GRAMINA DAK SEVA SUB POST MASTER (hereinafter referred to as 'GDSSPM') at Tulasipur, Banki Sub-Post Office under Cuttack Division. The petitioner offered himself to be a candidate from O.B.C. community and claimed to have secured 64% of marks in Board of Secondary Examination. It appears that opp. party No. 3 filed a case before the Central Administrative Tribunal, being O.A. No. 571 of 1999 wherein he claimed that the post of GDSSPM should be filled up from the S.T. category. In the absence of any candidate from S.T. category, preference should have been given to the Scheduled Caste community. But the opp.parties 1 and 2 without giving any preference to opp. party No. 3 were about to give appointment order to the present petitioner. Thus, he has prayed against opp. party No. 2 to cancel the appointment, it given in favour of the petitioner. The opp.parties 1 and 2 before the Tribunal have submitted in their counter by stating that the petitioner was already given appointment as GDSSPM from O.B.C. category. The post of GDSSPM was not exclusively meant for the Scheduled Caste persons as stated by opp.parties 1 and 2. But, however, the Tribunal after rejecting the stand taken by them directed, that the application offered by the opp. party No. 3 was unreasonably and illegally rejected by the opp.parties 1 and 2. Therefore, his application deserved consideration and accordingly the order should be passed with regard to his appointment.

3. Pursuant to the said direction the opp.parties 1 and 2 have cancelled the petitioner's appointment and issued an order of appointment in favour of the opp.party No. 3 as GDSSPM.

4. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Advocate appearing for petitioner has strongly contended that the post of GDSSPM was never meant exclusively for Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste people, but it was meant to be filled up from general candidates. But in the advertisement it was specified that preference shall be given to the Scheduled Tribe category. In the absence of suitable Scheduled Tribe candidates, preference shall be given to Scheduled Caste and in its absence to O.B.C. candidates and in the absence of any suitable O. B. C. candidates to general candidates. The petitioner having secured maximum percentage of marks in the Board of Secondary Examination and his application having been found complete in all respect, he was given appointment as GDSSPM.

5. The learned counsel of opp.party No. 3 while repelling the petitioner's submission has contended that the opp.parties 1 and 2 have over-looked the income certificate though furnished by him. He has strongly relied upon the income certificate placed before the Tribunal. From the income certificate, it has been disclosed that he derived an income of Rs. 18,000/- per year from his business. The Tahasildar at a later stage rectified his mistake that the opp. party No. 3 had not derived Rs. 18.000/- from the business. But such income was from the rice business, as reported by the Revenue Inspector. The opp.parties 1 and 2, however, strongly denied that the petitioner was receiving income at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- from the landed properties.

6. First of all it is to be considered whether the post for which the petitioner vis-a-vis the opp. party No. 3 applied was meant to be filled up from the Scheduled Tribe category or from the general candidates. At the time of hearing, both the parties submitted that it was not meant for Scheduled Tribe, but it was meant for general category. In the advertisement it has been indicated that the Scheduled Tribe, in their absence Scheduled caste in their absence O.B.C. and in their absence General candidates shall be given preference. In between the relative merits of the petitioner vis-a-vis the opp. party No. 3 the petitioner secured more percentage of marks than opp. party No. 3 in the Board of Secondary Examination. Next it has to be considered whether the opp. party No. 3 submitted all the necessary requisites before the opp.parties 1 and 2 pursuant to the advertisement. The opp.parties 1 and 2 in their counter have submitted that since the application filed by the opp. party No. 3 was incomplete, therefore, his case was not considered. On a mere look to the order passed by the Tribunal it appears that the Tahasildar had issued income certificate mainly upon the submission made by the opp. party No. 3 that he purchased certain landed properties from which the income from the house might have been derived at the rate of Rs. 18,000/-. We are at a loss to understand how could the Tribunal abruptly jump to the conclusion without any basis that the opp. party No. 3 derived Rs. 18,000/- as rent from house, whereas the report of the Tahasildar on the basis of the Revenue Inspector has suggested that from rice business the opp. party No. 3 might have derived Rs. 18,000/-. Be that as it may, since all the particulars showing the properties owned by the opp. party No. 3 were not fully furnished before the opp.parties 1 and 2, they were justified in ignoring his claim and by giving appointment to the petitioner. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the observation of the learned Tribunal.

7. In the result the writ petition succeeds, the appointment of opp. party No. 3 and also the notice, vide Annexure-1 and the order, videAnnexure-8 are quashed and we direct opp.parties 1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to continue in the said post.

There shall be no order as to costs.

B.P. Das, J.

8. I agree.

Same Court & Year Orissa · 2003 Same Parties Ashok Kumar Sahoo vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge B. Panigrahi and ;B.P. Das, JJ.

Service