STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. ETC. versus SUKANTI MOHAPATRA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 505 · Decided: 19-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

' '-· 
~-
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
SUKANTI MOHAPATRA AND ORS. ETC. 
MARCH 19, 1993 
~ 
[A.M. AHMADI AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.] 
B 
Se!Vice Law : 
Orissa Mi11isterial Se!Vice (Method and Recruitment to Posts of Lower 
Divisio11 Assista11ts in the Offices of Heads of Department) Rules, 1975: 
c 
Rules 13 & 14--Appointment by Relaxation-Candidates appointed 
--,, 
without following the relevant rules-Regularisation of such irregular appoin-
tees-Effect of-:lnte1"Se seniority-Fixation of-Whether the irregular appoin-
tees subsequently regularised can be placed above the regular appointees on 
D 
the basis of total length of se1Vice. 
The Orissa Ministerial Service (Method and Recruitment !t1 Posts 
of Lower Division Assistants in the Offices of Heads of Department) 
Rules, 1975 (the Rules) came into force with effect from 1.1.1976. Rule 3 
thereof provided that recruitment to the said posts should be made by E 
x 
_means of a competitive examin!ltion to he held once in every year. Rule 
8(b) p_rescribed the minimum educational qualification as Intermediate in 
Arts/Science/Commerce. Rule 14 provided for relaxation of the provisions 
in respect of any class or category of persons in public interest. Rule 13 
proviMd for the relative seniority of candidates with reference to the 
position in the competitive exa_mination. A proviso came to be added to F 
Rule 13 'that those appointed by relaxation under Rule 14 would rank 
" 
below the validly recruited candidates. 
A large number of persons came to be recruited without resort to 
competitive examination. Many of them did not possess the minimum G 
qualification. Their appointments were made by resorting to relaxation 
under Rule 14. Subsequently their services were regularised. 
y' 
The orders of regularisation and fixing of relative seniority were 
challenged before the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal observed 
that the po,ver to relax can:not be resorted to regularise irregular appoint-
H 
' 
505 
-,../ 
j 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993) 2 S.C.R. 
•' 
A 
ments. However, in view of the lapse of time, it felt that quashing of 
..... 
regularisation would result in loss of livelihood to the irregular recruits, 
and so it did not strike down the regularisation order. As. regards 
~, 
seniority, the Tribnnal ordered that the regular appointees would be 
,..
senior to the irregular appointees. 
B 
Against the orders of the Tribunal the irregular appointees as also 
~ 
the State Government preferred appeals before this Court. 
Disposing of the appeals, this Court, 
c 
HELD : 1.1 . Rule 14 of the Rules empowers the Government to 
relax any rule or rules in public interest for any class or category of 
~
persons for reasons to be stated in writing. However, it is clear from the 
' 
two orders that the regularisation was made for individuals specified in 
-< 
the orders who had made representations and not for any class or 
D 
category of persons. It is true that the persons named in the orders were 
irregular appointees but the orders do not say that all irregular appoin- -
tees will stand regularised under the said orders. [512E-F] 
1.2. The first order of January 3, 1985 says that regularisation .is 
being permitted on compassionate grounds, which would depend on the 
li
E fact-situation of each appointee. The subsequent order of February 14, 
' 
.:>. 
1985, does not even pretend to state that the action is in public interest. 
It is totally silent on this point. The essential requirement i.e. the 
condition precedent for the exercise of power under Rule 14, namely, 
public interest, is not shown to have been satisfied. Rule 14 permits 
-
F 
relaxation of "any of the provisions of the rules" but it does not speak of 
regularisation. Ex-facie the two orders do not speak of any particular 
rule or rules having been relaxed but provides for regularising the 
y' 
services of specified individuals whose. appointments were outside and 
inconsistent with the Rules. The reason for exercise of power in the case 
of nine appointees covered under the order of January 3, 1985 is stated 
G to be "compassionate grounds" but in the case of those covered under 
the second order or February 14, 1985, no ground at all is given. Such 
orders, therefore, cannot have the protection of Rule 14 nor can the 
\.,' 
appointments be regularised as having been done under the Rules so as 
to dislodge the seniority of regularly appointed persons. 
H 
[512G-H;.513A-D] 
\_ 
STATE OF ORISSA 

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