KISHORE CHANDRA PANIGRAHI versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 116 · Decided: 29-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KISHORE CHANDRA PANIGRAHI 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 29, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Orissa Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment and conditions 
C of Service of Clerks, Assistants in the District office and Office of Heads of 
Department) Rules, 1963: 
Promotion-Statutory Recruitment Rules-Temporary promotion 
contrary to-Employee temporarily promoted as junior clerk in Class III 
from post of peon in Class IV-Subsequently reverted to substantive post of 
D peon-Held: such promotion being contrary to statutory rules and per se 
illegal did not confer any right on the employee to the promotional pas/-
Hence, such reversion neither illegal nor punitive in nature. 
' 
Orissa Ministerial Services (Regularisation of Recruitment and 
E conditions of Service of Irregular Recruits in District Offices and Offices 
Subordinate thereto) Rules, 1986 : 
Regularisation-Applicability of-Held: not applicable in the case 
of promotion from Class IV to Class III post. 
F 
The appellant was appointed to the post of peon in Class IV and 
later on promoted to post of Junior Clerk which was a post in Class 
III. Subsequently, the appellant was reverted to his substantive post 
of peon of Class IV. The State Administrative Tribunal dismissed the 
petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the promotion of 
G the appellant to the post of Junior Clerk was temporarily made without 
prejudice to the claim of seniority ofothers and that the said promotion 
was contrary to the Orissa Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment 
and conditions of Service of Clerks, Assistants in the District Office 
and Office of the Heads of Department) Rules, 1963 and, therefore, 
did not confer any right on the appellant. Being aggrieved the 
H appellant preferred the present appeal. 
116 
... '· 
·• 
K.C. PANIGRAH!v. STATEOFORISSA 
117 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the appellant A 
should have been regularised under the Orissa Ministerial Services 
(Regularisation of Recruitment and conditions of Service of Irregular 
Recruits in the District Offices and offices Subordinate thereto) Rules, 
1986. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the B 
Regularisation Rules regulated only direct recruits and did not govern 
the case of promotion like that of the appellant. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I.I. The Orissa Ministerial Services (Method of C 
Recruitment and conditions of Service of Clerks, Assistants in the 
District Office and Office of the Heads of Department) Rules, 1963 do 
not contemplate any promotion from Class IV to Class III. Under the 
said Recruitment Rules it is not permissible. for a peon in Class IV to 
be promoted to the post of Junior Clerk in Class III. Consequently 
promotion of the appellant to the post of Junior Clerk in Class III was D 
per se illegal being contrary to the statutory Recruitment Rules and did 
not confer any right on the appellant who holds the said post. Therefore, 
the order of reversion passed by the employer reverting the appellant 
to the substantive post must be held to be legal and does not suffer from 
any illegality and not penal in nature. [119-E-F[ 
1.2. The Orissa Ministerial Services (Regularisation of 
Recruitment and conditions of Service of Irregular Recruits in the 
District Offices and Offices Subordinate thereto) Rules, 1986 no doubt 
regularise irregular recruits to the post of Junior Clerks and Assistants 
E 
in Class III. But such Regularisation Rules do not bring within their F 
sweep the case of promotion of an employee in Class IV to that of 
Clerk in Class III. Hence, the appellant's case is not covered by the 
Regularisation Rules. [119-GH, 120-A-B[ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13360 of G 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.90 of the Orissa 
Administrative Tribunal at Bhubneshwar in M.P. No.786 of 1990. 
P.N. Misra for the Appellant. 
H 
118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 
Radha Shyam Jena for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATTANAIK. J. Leave granted. 
B 
This Appeal by Special Leave is directed against the order of the 
Orissa Administrative Tribunal dated 19th April, 1990, passed in O.A. 
No. 134of1986 as well as the order of the said Tribunal dated 3.9.1990 
passed by the said Tribunal on an application for review. 
C 
The appellant had been appointed to the post of a peon in Class JV in 
the year 1976 in the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.