AJAY KUMAR BHUYAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 464 · Decided: 03-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AJAY KUMAR BHUY AN AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 3, 2002 
B 
[DORAISWAMYRAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Orissa Police Manual, 1940; Rule 862(b), Volume 1 and Appendix 41 
C of Vol.IJ; Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment of Jr. Assistant 
in the Office of Head of Department) Rules, 
0 1975: 
Appointments of Assistants/Jr. Assistants in the Office of DGP!IGP-
Temporary!Adhoc appointments-Power to recruit vested with DGP!IGP-
D State Government granted exemption and DGP/JGP continue ,:o appoint 
Temporary!Adhoc Assistants till finalisation of Statutory Rules-Services of 
some of the recruits discharged and fresh appointments made-Challenge 
of-Tribunal directed their re-appointment till regular appointments made 
under the Statutory Rules-Recruits of 1981-83 filed petition for 
regularisation of their services under the provisions of Statutory Rules-No 
E directions issued.by Supreme Court-Some of recruits of 1985 were discharged 
and appeared in fresh recruitment test-Four of the unsuccessful candidates 
filed petitions for regularisation of their service-Tribunal allowed it contrary 
to its earlier decision as affirmed by this Court-On appeal: Held, After 
Statutory Rules framed, authorities unde1' Police Manual ceased to exist; 
Consequently, continuance of appointu~ents made by D(JPIIGP thereunder 
F are illegal and notjustified-DGP failed to bring to the notice of the Supreme 
Court about the framing of Statutory Rules-Under the circumstances, earlier 
decision of Supreme Court to continue the appointments made in pursuance 
of earlier rules was justified. 
G 
H 
The Orissa Police Manual, 1940 empowered IGP/DGP to appoint 
ministerial staff. Subsequently, Orissa Ministerial Service (Meth<Jd of 
Recruitment of Junior Assistant in the Office of Heads of Department) Rules, 
1975 were framed which empowered the Board of Revenue to appoint staff for 
the DGP/IGP Office as well. However, State Government granted exemption 
from rules to DGP/IGP for appointment of its ministerial staff subject to 
464 
A.K. BHUYAN v. STATE 
465 
submission of draft rules regulating the recruitment, training and promotion A 
of the staff so appointed. Statutory rules in this regard came into existence 
w.e.f. 26.4.1988. In the meanwhile, DGP/IGP made recruitment of 74 
candidates under the Police Manual on temporary!Adhoc basis and discharged 
34 of these candidates from service followed by appointment of 54 candidates. 
Some of them challenged the order of their discharge from service. Tribunal 
directed their re-appointment till regular candidates were appointed under B 
statutory rules. On appeal by the DGJ,'/IGP and others, this Co11rt affirmed 
the order of Tribunal and directed the State Government to frame Statutory 
rules within a stipulated period and also issued certain incidental directions 
with regard to relaxation in age and qualification of the appellants while 
making regular appointments. DGP/IGP filed a Miscellaneous Petition in the C 
disposed of appeals for direction to State Government for relaxation of 
provisions in the rules, regularising the service of temporary/Adhoc staff 
appointed by them, but no directions were issued in these matters. State 
Government also rejected the application of DGP/IGP on the same issue. 
Thereafter some recruits of 1985 were discharged and new appointments were D 
made giving opportunity to the discharged candidates to appear in the Test. 
Some of the unsuccessful candidates challenged the validity of the recruitment 
. before the Tribunal and separate applications were filed challenging the 
recruitments/regularisation of 1981-83 appointees. Tribunal allowed the 
earlier appointments by taking a view contrary to its earlier order and the 
view taken by this Court but disposed of the later application vide its order E 
dated 2.1.1997 and subsequently the Review Petition by order dated 1.3.1997. 
Hence these appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Neither the fact relating to the coming into force of the F 
statutory rules made in 1988 seems to have been placed before the Court nor 
the Court has specifically adverted to the declaration of law made by this Court 
on 19.1.1988 (except referring to the mere direction to frame rules) as to the 
character and efficacy of the provisions contained in the Police Manual or 
the nature of appointments made by the DGP under the provisions in the Police 
Manual. Another serious f

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