LexPRATAP KISHORE PANDA versus AGNI CHARAN DAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 14 S.C.R. 308 PRATAP KISHORE PANDA v. AGNI CHARAN DAS (Civil Appeal Nos. 6305-6307 of 2009) OCTOBER 16, 2015 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] Service Law - Seniority - Due to inadequate number of candidates in reserved category recommended by Public C Service Commission, State Government decided to fill the remaining seats on an ad hoc basis - Names of candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and they were found suitable by a duly constituted Selection Committee which interviewed them - By State Resolutions, ad hoc D reserved candidates were deemed as regular appointments ..,. As a result, respondents-reserved category appointees not recruited by OPSC but through alternate method of regular recruitment became senior to appellants who were OPSC appointed general category candidates - Challenge against E - Held: It is well within the power of State to organise an alternative recruitment drive when insufficient SC/ST candidates are available and under Article 320(4), the OPSC was not required to be consulted- In the instant case, it was not a relaxation of the Rules in order to favour a few but was F a consequence of following an alternate method of selection intended to remedy a malady in the recruitrrent of SC/ST candidates - The sponsorship of names by the Employment Exchange and the subsequent interview by a duly constituted Selection Committee was thus a valid G alternative to recruitment by way of the OPSC competitive examination - Since respondents were appointed in legitimate manner, the merit list should not be disturbed to protect the rights of the OPSC candidates- Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service H 308 PRATAP Kl SHORE PANDA v. AGNI CHARAN DAS 309 of Lower Division Assistant in the Office of Department of A Secretariat) Rules, 1951-rr.3, 9. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The Umadevi doctrine is that if· employment of persons is contrary to or de hors the statutory provisioris and/or Rules and Regulations, then B equities will not have any play even if such persons have been rendering services for several years. The most that can be done for such employees is for the State Government to devise a scheme, as a one-time measure, for their absorption so long as the Governing Statute C or the Rules and Regulations are not infringed. In the words of the Constitution Bench - "When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the D relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post E could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation · with the Public Service Commission. The State Government in the present case has carried out recruitment in a regular manner, albeit beyond the F OPSC which had presented a panel containing negligible number of SC/ST candidates. The subject challenged recruitment was neither capricious nor arbitrary but on the contrary was carried out in consonance with a known method of selection, viz. Rule 9(4). This was not G a case of ad hoc employees being selected in a whimsical, inconsistent or haphazard manner or in order to favour some individuals. The incumbents were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and over 400 candidates were found suitable by a duly constituted· H 310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 14 S.C.R. A Selection Committee which interviewed them. It was not a relaxation of the Rules in order to favour a few, but was the consequence of following an alternate method of selection intended to remedy a malady in the recruitment of SC/ST candidates. It is well within the B powers of the State to organise an alternative recruitment drive when insufficient SC/ST candidates are available, and under Article 320(4) of the Constitution the OPSC was not required to be consulted. [Para 11][323-A-H; 324-A-C] C · 2. The amendment was made to Rule 3 of the OMS Rules 1951. It was only on 10.10.1979 that the Rule was amended, introducing the requirement that in case the · requisite number of SC/ST candidates are not available for filling up reserved
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.