JUDGMENT
I.M. Quddusi, J.
1. The instant writ application has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.9.2005 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original Application No. 706 of 2005 wherein the petitioner-Association was the applicant.
2. It appears that a review meeting was held on 17.6.2004 presided by the Chief Minister, Orissa to review anti-poverty programme and to tender services for their implementation. It was resolved therein that each block should have an Additional Block Development Officer (in short ‘A.B. D.O.) and 136 such posts can be created by merging posts of Progress Assistants and Grama Panchayat Extension Officers into one cadre and each block should also have one Panchayat Development Officer.
3. Although in the above resolution decision to merge the said post was not taken and as such it was, not notififed; but the petitioner filed the above mentioned O.A. before the Tribunal against the order creating of 136 posts of Additional Block Development Officers (A.B.D.Os) without merging cadres of Progress Assistants and Grama Panchayat Extension Officers. The Tribunal, while disposing of the O.A., inter alia, observed:
We were shown the original recruitment rules and the amended recruitment rules to the post of A.B.D.Os. We have noticed from this that the Progress Assistants and Grama Panchayat Extension Officers cadres are the feeder cadres for promotion to the posts of A.B.D.Os and there will be no third cadre for the same. The rules make it clear that promotion will be on the basis of evaluation of performance although there are two feeder cadres and their ranking will be on the basis of their merit. While so it has been clarified that the earlier ratio of 1:1 should be continued when Progress Assistants ‘ and Grama Panchayat Extension Officers is promoted to the post of A.B.D.Os. This means that at the stage of selection it would mean that while merit determines the ranking the number of persons to be included in the list are equally distributed between the two cadres and that being the case, the individual seniority may not be protected but we find that if the ratio is to be maintained, a minor disturbance in seniority apart from the seniority list will be maintainable.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the petitioner-Association has approached this Court by filing the instant writ application.
5. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.
6. Promotion to the post of A.B.D.Os is made in accordance with Rule 4 of the “Additional Block Development Officers (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1992” which has been amended vide notification dated 14.12.1998. Earlier the promotion was to be made from amongst the officers borne in the cadres of Social Education Organisers, Grama-Panchyat Extension Officers and Progress Assistants in the ratio 1:1:1. But after amendment, the promotion is to be made from amongst the officers borne in the cadre of Grama Panchayat Extension Officers and Progress Assistants in the ratio of 1:1. The post of Social Education Organisers have been excluded from the promotional channel to the post of A.B.D.Os and, therefore, the vacancy of A.B.D.Os are to be filled up by promotion at the ratio of 50% from the cadre of Grama Panchayat Extension Officers and remaining 50% from Progress Assistants.
7. In view of the above position, it cannot be a question of dispute that whether the seniority list in both the cadres should be maintained separately or not and whether the division of the vacancies would be at the ratio of 1:1. Therefore, the direction of the Tribunal that a minor disturbance in seniority apart from seniority list will be maintainable, is not a proper adjudication of the matter as the promotions are to be considered at the ratio of 1:1 on the available vacancies from separate seniority list and hence there is no scope of disturbing the inter se seniority in any of the cadres. The question of considering the seniority list would arise on the post of A.B.D.Os. However, the same has no concern with the matter in dispute.
8. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with the direction that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal stands superceded by this order.
N. Prusty, J.
9. I agree