KARUNA LAHIRI versus GAUTAM KUMAR CHAKRABORTY AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 322 · Decided: 07-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KARUNA LAHIRI 
v. 
GAUTAM KUMAR CHAKRABORTY AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 7, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
State of Orissa-Law Department-Ad hue appointment . ..-Regularisa-
C tion of-Rules providing selection of regulady appuillted candidates to be 
confirmed by State Public Service Commission-State Administrative 
Tribunal commenting upon unsatisfacfOl)' way uf selections made by State 
Law Department-Held, Tribunal rightly pointed out unsatisfactory way of 
functioning of Slate Law Department-Claims lo be considered only accord-
ing to mies de hors any adverse re;nark. 
D 
The appellant and respondent No. t were initially appointed on ad 
hoc basis. Later the Committee constituted for their selection on regular 
basis placed respondent No. 1 at serial No. 1 and the appellant at serial 
No. 3. The appointments were subject to confirmation by the State Public 
E Service Commission. The Minister, instead of sending the names to the 
State Public Service Commission for confirmation, as required under the 
rules, recommended for appointment of the appellant Respondent No. 1 
approached the Tribunal and ultimately the Public Service Commission 
selected the appellant as number 3 and respondent No. 1 as number 4. 
Consequently the Tribunal disposed of the application of respondent No. 
F 1. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal. 
G 
The appeal was not argued on merits. However, the appellant ap-
prehended that the remarks made by the Tribunal might be construed to 
be adverse to her, affecting her future prospects. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : There is no justification for an apprehension that the 
remarks made by the Tribunal would be construed to be adverse to the 
appellant for her future prospects. The Tribunal bad quite rightly pointed 
H out the unsatisfactory way of functioning of the Law Department of the 
322 
KARUNALAHIRI v. G.K CHAKRABORTY 
323 
State of Orissa. The claims would be considered only according to rules A 
de hors any adverse remark. [324-B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11966 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.8.93 of the Orissa ad-
B 
ministrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 631 of 1992. 
Raj Kumar Mehta and N .K. Sharma for the Appellant. 
A.K. Panda and P.N. Misra for the Respondents. 
c 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
It is rather unfortunate that the Law Department of the Orissa State 
is functioning in unsatisfactory way. It is reflected in this case also. This is D 
one of the three cases which have come up before this Court relating to 
service matter. Other Departments, look for guidance from Law Depart-
ment. Instead of becoming a model functionary, its officers indulge in 
litigating their own cases because of their back-door entry into service. 
The appellant claims to have been appointed .on ad hoc basis by E 
proceedings dated October 26, 1990. Gautam Kumar Chakraborty, the first 
respondent and the appellant had joined the Department on January 27, 
1986. The Committee constituted for their selection, found the first respon-
dent to be number one and the appellant as number 3 in the list. Admit-
tedly, regular appointments are subject to confirmation by the Orissa F 
Public Service Commission. Instead of sending the names to the Commis-
sion for consideration, the Minister recommended for appointment of the 
appellant. The first respondent naturally had approached the Tribunal 
staking his claim for confirmation. The Tribunal directed the Government 
to refer to the matter, in terms of the Rules, to the Commission which after 
considering the respective merits of all the candidates had selected D. G 
Mullick as number 1, B.N. Sahoo as number 2, appellant as number 3 and 
Gautam Kumar Chakraborty as number 4 and recommended for appoint-
ment. Consequently, the application of the respondent was disposed of. 
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal passed on August 27, 1993 
in O.A. No. 631 of 1992, this appeal by special leave has been filed. In the H 
324 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A face of these facts, there is no chance for the appellant to argue on merits. 
Shri N.K. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, 
realising the insurmountable difficulty in the way, contended that the 
remarks made by the Tribunal would be construed to be adverse to the 
appellant for her future prospects. We find that there is no justification for 
B s

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