Service Law – Appointment – On 28.04.08 the appellant-State issued letter to all the Departments inviting recommendations for appointment by way of promotion to the Orissa Administrative Service Class-II (OAS Class-II) cadre having 150 vacancies – Recruitment process was to be undertaken in accordance with the 1978 Rules and the 1978 Regulations – Concerned Departmental Authorities forwarded the names of 559 candidates, including the Respondents, for consideration – State decided to keep the recruitment process for OAS Class-II posts for the recruitment year 2008 on hold, till the process of recruitment for the years 2001-2005 was completed – Aggrieved by the delay, OAs filed by the Respondents before the Tribunal – State undertook restructuring of the Orissa Administrative Service in Feb. 2009 – Existing cadre of OAS Class-II posts was abolished and corresponding cadre of the Orissa Revenue Service Group ‘B’ cadre was created – State appointed candidates on OAS Class-II posts for the recruitment years 2001 to 2005 – 1978 Rules under which the 2008 recruitment process had been initiated, repealed– Tribunal directed the State to take immediate steps to fill up Class- II/Group‘B’ posts in the Orissa Revenue Service cadre – Challenge by the Respondents –Judgment of the Tribunal set aside –On appeal, held: Respondents cannot claim an accrued or vested right for selection or promotion to OAS Class-II posts, merely on the basis of their names being forwarded – Their names were merely recommended by their respective Departmental Authorities under Regulation 6 – Recruitment process did not proceed any further in accordance with Regulations 7-10 – Respondents can not be considered to be ‘eligible’ for appointment under the erstwhile 1978 Regulations, since the steps set out in the aforesaid regulations had not been completed prior to the repeal of the old 1978 Rules and the 1978 Regulations – Further, the respondents did not challenge either the abolition of OAS Class-II posts, or the creation of the corresponding Orissa Revenue Service Group ‘B’ posts – To the contrary, some of them participated in the proceedings of the D.P.C. convened on 30.04.2013 for recruitment to the newly created Orissa Revenue Service Group ‘B’ cadre – Judgment of the Division Bench set aside – Orissa Administrative Service, Class II (Recruitment) Rules, 1978 – Orissa Administrative Service, Class-II (Appointment by Promotion and Selection) Regulations, 1978 – Orissa Administrative Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 – Orissa Revenue Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2011.
Practice & Procedure – In limine dismissal of SLP – Effect of – Held: Dismissal of a S.L.P. in limine simply implies that the case before the court was not considered worthy of examination for a reason, which may be other than the merits of the case – Such in limine dismissal at the threshold without giving any detailed reasons, does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent u/Art.141 – Constitution of India – Art.141. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Contesting Respondents cannot claim an accrued or vested right for selection or promotion to OAS Class -II posts in the year 2008, merely on the basis of their names being forwarded by the respective Departmental Authorities. When the recruitment process for 2008 was initiated vide Letter dated April 28, 2008 by the State, the extant rules and regulations occupying the field for selection and promotion to OAS Class-II posts were the Orissa Administrative Service, Class II (Recruitment) Rules, 1978 and the Orissa Administrative Service, Class-II (Appointment by Promotion and Selection) Regulations, 1978. Rule 6 of the OAS Class II Rules, 1978 provided for the determination of vacancies by the State Government. [Paras 7.1-7.3] [208-B-D]
1.2 Rule 3 of the OAS Class II, Rules 1978 provided that recruitment to OAS Class II posts was to be made by three methods– first, direct recruitment by competitive examination [Rule 3(a)]; second, promotion from amongst Gazetted Officers of a certain class [Rule 3(b)]; and third, selection of non-Gazetted ORS.
Officers [Rule 3(c)]. The proportion of candidates to be recruited by the methods specified above as per Rule 8 of the OAS Class II Rules, 1978 was– 50% by direct recruitment, 30% by promotion, and 20% by selection. In accordance with Regulation 6(i) of the OAS Class II Regulations, 1978, any recruitment process by way of selection or promotion was to be initiated by the State by calling for recommendations from Collectors, Heads of Departments and Departments of Governments, who were required to forward a list of candidates considered suitable to the Administrative Department (i.e. the Revenue Department). On receipt of the recommendations, the Administrative Department (i.e. the Revenue Department) was required to place a list of recommended candidates in a tabular form before a Selection Board constituted under Regulation 3. [Paras 7.4-7.6] [208-G; 209-A-E]
1.3 Under Regulation 7, the Selection Board was required to consider the recommendations so received from the Administrative Department, scrutinise the records relating to the candidates who had been recommended, and prepare a list of candidates who in the opinion of the Selection Board are suitable for appointment to OAS Class – II posts. Thereafter, as per Regulation 8, the list prepared by the Selection Board under Regulation 7 was required to be referred to the Orissa Public Service Commission by the State Government, along with the service records of the all candidates whose names feature in the list. The list of candidates recommended by the Orissa Public Service Commission under Regulation 9 was required to be placed before the State Government. The said list, after any approval with modification, was to form the final list from which appointments were to be made to OAS Class-II posts by way of selection or promotion in accordance with Regulation 10. In the present case, the names of 559 candidates, including the contesting Respondents, were merely recommended by their respective Departmental Authorities under Regulation 6. The recruitment process did not proceed any further in accordance with Regulations 7, 8, 9 and 10. No final list of selected candidates was placed by the Orissa Public Service Commission before the State Government for the purposes of appointment as against the vacancies of 2008. There was no time-frame prescribed for completion of the recruitment process under the erstwhile OAS Class-II Rules, 1978 or the OAS Class-II Regulations, 1978. [Paras 7.7-7.9, 7.10, 7.12 and 7.14] [209-F-H; 210-A-C; 211-C-D; 213-D-E]
1.4 The contesting Respondents have not challenged either the abolition of OAS Class – II posts, or the creation of the corresponding Orissa Revenue Service Group ‘B’ posts. To the contrary, some of them participated in the proceedings of the D.P.C. convened on 30.04.2013 for recruitment to the newly created Orissa Revenue Service Group ‘B’ cadre. After being considered, 6 of the contesting Respondents were selected, while
1 was kept on the Waiting List. The State appointed the said Respondents to the Orissa Revenue Service Group ‘B’ posts. However, only two out of the five contesting Respondents who were appointed, joined the posts. Subsequently, during the pendency of the W.P.s, another D.P.C. was convened to consider the promotion of employees working in the Orissa Revenue Services Group ‘B’ posts to Orissa Administrative Service Group A (Junior Branch) posts. 1 contesting Respondent was promoted to the OAS Group A (Junior Branch) cadre. The contesting Respondents cannot claim any lien over the abolished OAS ClassII posts, which were governed by the old OAS Class II Rules, 1978 and OAS Class II Regulations, 1978. The appointments of persons as against the vacancies for the years 2001 to 2005 were made vide two Notifications dated December 7, 2010, which were issued prior to the repeal of the old OAS Class II Rules, 1978 and the OAS Class II Regulations, 1978. [Paras 7.15-7.19 and 7.21] [213-G-H; 214-A-D; 216-D-E]
1.5 The dismissal of a S.L.P. in limine simply implies that the case before this Court was not considered worthy of examination for a reason, which may be other than the merits of the case. Such in limine dismissal at the threshold without giving any detailed reasons, does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. The Judgment of the Division Bench is liable to be set aside since the contesting Respondents did not have a vested or fructified right of promotion to OAS Class II posts which had ORS.
arisen during the recruitment year 2008. The direction of the Division Bench to appoint the contesting Respondents in the vacancies which had occurred in the abolished cadre, in accordance with the repealed 1978 Rules, was contrary to law, and liable to be set aside. [Paras 7.22 and 8] [217-A-D]
Union of India & Ors. v. Krishna Kumar & Ors. 2019
(1) SCALE 691 ; Deepak Agarwal & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 725 : [2011] 4 SCR 149 ; State of Tripura & Ors. v. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty & Ors. (2017) 3 SCC 646 ; Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Chanan Ram (1998) 4 SCC 202 ; Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India & Anr. (1989) 1 SCC 187 : [1989] 3 SCR
488 ; State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770 : [2011] 15 SCR 540 – relied on.
Y.V. Rangaiah & Ors. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. (1983)
3 SCC 284 ; Mukti Ranjan Acharya & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors. 2012 (II) OLR 61 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.