DILIP KUMAR TRIPATHY AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 711 · Decided: 10-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DILIP KUMAR TRIPATHY AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: Orissa State Police-Recrnitmellt for the post of 
Sepoy~rescribed nonns and procedure-Advertisement issued-Selection 
Committee prepared a list of 225 candidates-Except the six appellants all 
other candidates appointed and list exhausted-Vacancies still ex-
isted-Second list of 200 candidates prepared amongst the persons appeared 
in the earlier recrnitment test-Only 16 persons appointed excluding appel-
lallts-Held, appointments to any public post must be absolutely transparellt 
A 
B 
c 
and fair and must be in accordance with the prescribed procedure-Competent 
authority may relax the age limit, if ba1red by lapse of time, and consider the D 
applications of the candidates in the Second list-Directions issued. 
The respondent State issued an advertisement inviting applications 
for recruitment to the post of Sepoy. A list of 225 candidates was prepared 
by the Selection Committee and everyone was appointed except six can-
didates belonging to the reserved category. 
E 
Thereafter, to fill up the existing vacancies in the cadre of sepoy, the 
respondents prepared a fresh list of 200 candidates from amongst the 
persons who had earlier appeared in the recruitment test. But only 16 
persons were given provisional appointment and no action was taken to F 
recruit others including appellants, even though vacancies existed. 
Appellants whose names were in the fresh list but were not recruited 
despite the availability of the vacancies approached the Tribunal with a 
contention that decision of the authority was arbitrary. The Tribunal G 
directed the respondents to appoints the rest of the candidates from the 
fresh list subject to availability of vacancies. The Tribunal also held that 
the first list was not prepared by a selection committee duly constituted 
as prescribed. Also, that fresh list should not have been prepared without 
transfers of sepoy. But, the Tribunal refused to quash the appointments 
made pursuant to both the lists. Hence, these appeals. 
H 
711 
A 
B 
712 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
. Allowing the appeals, this court 
HELD : 1.1. Appointments to any public. post must be absolutely 
transparent and fair and must be in accordance with the prescribed 
procedure. Even ad-hoc appointments should not be encouraged as far as 
possible and should be adhered to only when public exigencies require and 
appointment in accordance \fith the prescribed procedure would take a 
fairly long time and non-filling of the posts would be against public 
interest.· (717-C-D] 
1.2. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there was 
C absolutely no necessity to prepare a Second List from amongst the can-
didates Who had appeared at the tests earlier conducted, particularly when 
at that point of time there was no vacancy available. The arbitrary decision 
of the errant officers has brought the entire Police administration in the 
State to disrepute. (717-E] 
'( 
D 
1.3. A list of Candidates prepared contrary to the prescribed proce-
dure has to be scrapped altogether. The Second List of candidates 
prepared for appointment to the post of Sepoys is hereby quashed and any 
appointments made thereunder also stand quashed. The respondents are 
directed to issue advertisement indicating the number of vacancies avail-
E able and to adjudge the suitability of the applicants in accordance with the 
prescribed procedure and then take steps for filling up of the posts in 
question. By passage of time if any of the persons who were included in 
the Second· List have been age barred in the meantime and if they make 
applicatiOn for the posts of sepoy pursuant to fresh advertisement to be 
issued, then the competent authority may relax the age limit and consider 
F 
their cas·e in accordance with Law. (717-F-H] 
,. 
2.1; High ranking Police Officers who claim to be members of the 
disciplined force, have taken recourse to gross irregularities in getting list 
prepared for appointments to the post of sepoys contrary to the prescribed 
norms and procedure and. even though there did not exist vacancies. Such 
G course has been taken obviously not In the public Interest but for some 
extraneous consideration and as an allurement to hundreds of poor 
aspirants with some positive motive. Such conduct of the errant officers 
must be deprecated. [716-B-C] 
.-
H 
2.2. The app

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