STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. versus SURENDRANATH MALLICK AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 470 · Decided: 23-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

,-
A 
ST A TE OF ORISSA AND ANR. 
~ 
v. 
v 
SURENDRANA TH MALLICK AND ORS. 
JULY 23, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN,.JJ.] 
"" 
Service Law: 
,,. 
c 
Reversion-Tribunal framed issue as to whether applicant was to be 
reverted to his former post on return of Section Officer after expiry of his 
leave-However, Tribunal proceeded to deal ·with question of reservation 
~ 
and applicability of 1975 Act and Rules-High Court dismissed the writ 
le 
petition-On appeal, held: Tribunal formulated right issue but gave wrong 
answer without considering basic issues involved-High Court also lost 
.D sight of basic dispute-Matter remitted to Tribunal for fresh consideration-
Orissa Reservation of Vacancies Act/Rules, 1975. 
A " 
y 
Respondent No.1, aggrieved by the order of his reversion, challenged 
the same before the Tribunal. Tribunal noted that the main issue for decision 
was whether the respondent No.I-applicant was to be reverted to his former 
E post of Senior Assistant consequent on return of' A' Section Officer level-I 
after expiry of his leave. But while deciding the OA, it held that the reversion 
of the respondent No.1 consequent on return of Section Officer was not 
sustainable as it would cause depletion in the percentage of SC candidates in 
the rank of Section Officer Level II and that since 'A' is a general category 
F 
candidate, the junior most candidate belonging to that category would be 
reverted to make vacancy for the candidate who faces reversion consequent 
. .l... 
on expiry of leave of'A' and not the respondent No.1 who is a reserved category 
candidate. The High Court also lost sight of the ~asic challenge and dismissed 
the writ petition. 
'· 
G 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that both the Tribunal and 
the High Court did not consider the basic isst1es and erroneously proceeded 
to deal with a question of reservation and the applicability of Orissa 
Reservation of Vacancies Act, 1975 and Orissa Reservation of Vacancies 
\--
Rules, 1975. 
H 
470 
.. -( 
\ 
J< 
"' 
'"t 
'y 
\ 
STATEOFORISSAv. SURENDRANATHMALUCK[PASAYAT,J.] 
471 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the Tribunal, the Court A 
HELD: Though the Tribunal formulated the right issues, it gave a wrong 
answer without considering the basic issues involved. The High Court has 
also lost sight of the basic dispute. (Para 10) (473-B, q 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3203 of2007. 
B 
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.09.2001 of the High Court of 
Orissa at Cuttack in Original Jurisdicition Case No. 8259 of 2000. 
Jana Kalyan Das and A vijeet Bhujabal for the Appellants. 
c 
Shibashish Misra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of D 
Orissa High Court upholding the view taken by the Orissa Administrative 
Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal'). 
3. The respondent No. I had questioned the order of the appellants 
reverting him to the former post of Senior Assistant because of joining of one E 
Antaryami Acharya, Section Officer Level-I after the expiry of his leave, 
before the Tribunal. 
4. The Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal. The order of 
the Tribunal was questioned before the High Court which as noted above 
dismissed the same. 
F 
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the Tribunal 
and the High Court did not consider the basic issues and em;meously 
proceeded to deal with a question of reservation and the applicabil/ty of 
Orissa Reservation of Vacancies Act, 1975 (in short the 'ORV Act') and Orissa 
Reservation of Vacancies Rules, 1975 (in short the 'ORV Rules'). According G 
to the appellants those questions were not relevant. 
6. Learned counsel for respondent No .. I submitted that though the 
Tribunal and the High Court referred to the ORV Act and the ORV Rules, in 
reality they had no relevance, but .the basic issues have not been addressed H 
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 8 S.C.R. 
A by the Tribunal and the High Court. 
7. The Tribunal in para 9 of its order noted as follows: 
"The main issue to be decided is whether the applicant was to be 
reverted to his former post of Senior Assistant consequent on return 
B 
of Antaryami Acharya, Section Officer Level-I after expiry of his leave 
The learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the promotion 
of the applicant by annexure-4 order dated 16.4.19

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.