LexBHUPENDRA NATH HAZARIKA AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 12 S.C.R. 587 BHUPENDRA NATH HAZARIKA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos.8514-8515 of 2012) NOVEMBER 30, 2012 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] A B Service Law - Seniority - Inter se seniority - Of "regular batch''l'direct recruits" vis-a-vis "special batch"!'promotional recruits" - Determination - Held: On facts, appointment of C special recruits though prior to appointment of regular direct recruits was totally de hors the statutory rules - The special recruits encroached into the quota of the direct recruits - A maladroit effort was made to appoint the.special recruits first despite the recommendation of the direct recruits pending D before the State Government and though the Cabinet had not approved the proposal for special drive to appoint from another source - Also, no decision was taken to relax the seniority rules in favour of the special recruits - Concept of deemed relaxation not attracted for conferring any privilege E to the special recruits - Thus, their seniority vis-a-vis the direct recruits has to be pushed down - However, regard being had to the delayed challenge to the selection of special recruits and their long rendering of service in the posts and further promotions having been effected, it would be inapposite to F quash their appointments - Assam Police Service Rules, 1966 - rr.5, 18 and 23. Service Law - Recruitment - Illegal recruitment - Effect - Held: When there is violation of the recruitment rules, the recruitment is unsustainable - Whether any active part is G played by a selectee or not, has nothing to do with the appointment made in contravention of the rules. Service Law - Duty of the State - Held: State is a model 587 H 588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R. A employer and it is required to act fairly giving due regard and respect to the rules framed by it - Legitimate aspirations of the employees not to be guillotined. The Assam Public Service Commission issued 8 advertisement inviting applications for filling up 30 vacancies in the Assc.m Police Service (APS) in the compartment of "regular batch" or "direct recruitment". Subsequently, the Commission published another advertisement inviting applications for filling up of 20 posts in the APS by way of special drive, in the category C of "special batch" or "promotional recruits". One week after examination for the regular batch was held, examination for the special batch too was held. The Commission declared the result in respect of regular batch and recommended 30 candidates for appointment D in order of merit. Despite such recommendation, no appointment was made in respect of the regular batch. At this juncture, the Government requested the Commission to furnish the select list of special recruits. The Commission sent its recommendations on basis of E which, 19 persons were appointed for the special batch. F Thereafter, the Competent Authority appointed 28 persons from the regular batch. As the recruits of the special batch were appointed earlier, they were treated senior to the recruits belonging to the regular batch. Aggrieved, the direct recruits (i.e. recruits belonging to the regular batch) invoked the jurisdiction of the tribunal claiming to be senior to the special recruits and praying for apposite determination of inter se seniority G vis-a-vis the special recruits. The tribunal directed re- fixation of the seniority list. The o~der was upheld by the High Court. H In the instant appeals, the fundamental questions that emanated for consideration were, namely, whether BHUPENDRA NATH HAZARIKA v. STATE OF ASSAM 589 the appointments of special batch recruits had been A made in violation of the rules; and if yes, whether such appointments could be treated to be de hors the rules; and whether the concept of relaxation was extended to them or was extendable to them and further whether they could avail the benefit under the second proviso to Rule B 18 of the Rules and whether the tribunal as well as the High Court was justified in re-fixing the seniQrity without quashing the appointment of the special batch recruits. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Where recruitment of service is regulated by the statutory rules, the recruitment must be made in accordance with those rules and if any appointment is made in breach of the rules, the same would be illegal and c the persons so appointed have to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.