LexJAGDISH CH. PATNAIK AND ORS. versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
JAGDISH CH. PA TNAIK AND ORS.
v.
ST A TE OF ORIS SA AND ORS.
APRIL 7, 1998
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.]
Service law :
Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, I 941: Rule 26.
Seniority-Inter se-Direct recruits vis-a-vis promotees-Determination
of-Officers-' 'Recruited by promotion and by direct recruitment in the same
year"-Held: The word "recruited" means "appointed" and the "year"
means calendar year-A Direct recruit is recruited when appointment letter
is issued and not when process of recruitment is started-Hence, direct
D recruits recruited during the calendar year would be junior to the promotee
recruits recruited during the said calendar year-Further, while determining
seniority, reference to quota for direct recruitment and the vacancies under
that quota, not necessary.
E
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Sections 19 and 12.
Review application-Filed by third party-Maintainability of-Third
party also filed original application-Tribunal allowed review application
but dismissed original application as not maintainable-SL? filed against
dismissal of original application-Appeal against review order also filed--
Held : since the entire matter is before Supreme Court the issue regarding
F maintainability of review application need not be decided.
Interpretation of Statutes:
Interpretation-Ru/es of-Plain or ordinary meaning-Preference of-
Held : When language used in the statute is unambiguous and on a plain
G grammatical meaning being given to the words in the statute, the end result
is neither arbitrary and irrational nor contrary to the object of the statute,
then it is the duty of court to give effect to the words used in the statute
because the words declare the intention of the law making authority the best.
Words and Phrases :
H
"Recruited" and "Year "-Meaning of-In the context of R. 26 of the
676
{ -
JAGDISH CH. PATNAIK v. STATE
677
Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941.
A
The appellants were directly recruited as Assistant Engineers by the
State Public Service Commission in accordance with Orissa Service of
Engineers Rules, 1941 against vacancies for the year 1978 and were actually
appointed in the year 1980. The respondents were the promotees to the post B
of Assistant Engineers.
The appellants filed an original application before the State
Administrative Tribunal claiming that since the appellants were recruited
against vacancies for the year 1978 their seniority vis-11-vis the respondents
should be determined on that basis notwithstanding the fact that the appellants C
were actually appointed in the year 1980. The respondents had not been
arrayed as parties to the said proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the
application.
Being aggrieved the respondents filed a review application before the
Tribunal for reviewing the aforesaid order. The respondents also filed an D
original application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the original
application as not maintainable. However, the Tribunal allowed the review
application and held that the appellants could not be treated as recruits of
the year 1973 but must be treated as recruits of the year 1980 when they
were actually appointed. The Tribunal further held that the appellants were
not senior to the respondents of the year 1979 and 1980. Hence the present
appeals against the review order and dismissal of the original application.
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the review application
before the Tribunal was not maintainable since the original application filed
E
by the appellants was disposed of; that there was a distinction between the F
expressions "recruitment" and "appointment" in service jurisprudence and,
therefore, when Rule 26 used the expression "recruited" it must be a stage
prior to the issuance of the appointment letter and logically should mean
when the selection process started; and that the year in which the vacancy
occurred was relevant for determination of seniority irrespective of the year G
in which a person was recruited.
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the word 'year'
meant a calender year under Rule 3(t) and, therefore, Rule 26 was categorical
to the effect that when the appellants and respondents were recruited in the
same calender year the respondents would be senior to the appellants.
H
678
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1998] 2 S.C.R.
A
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The expression "officerExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.