STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. versus SUDHIR KUMAR BISWAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 665 · Decided: 16-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SUDHIR KUMAR BISWAL AND ORS. 
AUGUST 16, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
B 
Service law : 
Orissa District Revenue Service (Method of Recrnitment and conditions 
of Service) Rules 19~ule 5(1rRelaxation of maximum age-Power of C 
Government to specify certain categories-Whether unguided-Held: No-Sec-
tion 6(1Hestricting recrnitment to candidates of the particular dis-
trict-Whether violative Art. 16(2) of the Constitution. 
Constitution of Indio-Art. 16(2Hecrnitment to District Service D 
restricted to candidate of that district-Held violative of Art. 16(2f-However 
requirement of residence without a State not prohibited by art. 16(2). 
Certain potions of Rnles 5(1) and 6(1) of the Orissa District Revenue 
Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983 
were challenged before the Orlssa Administrative Tribunal. Hence these E 
appeals by the State. 
Disposing of the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. Rule 5(1) of the Orlssa District Revenue Service (Method 
of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983 speaks of ellgibilitY 
F 
conditions, one of which Is that the candidate mnst be below 28 years. 
Relaxation is provided in clause (b), in respect of SC/ST candidates and 
candidates with experience in settlement consolidation and to snch eXtent in 
case of sncb other categories as Government may, by general or special 
order, specify from time to time. The Tribunal observed tkat this clause G 
conferred unbridled power. This Court is of the view that the challenged 
portkm of the provision contained some guidelines. The first is that the 
categories in relation to which the power can be invoked bas to be analogous 
the two categories specifically mentioned in the rule. This appears to be the 
clear intention, as in the first part the proviso mention bas been made to 
· some categories, and so, "other categories"bave to be a kin to them, like H 
665 
666 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
other Backward Classes. This apart, as the power has been conferred on the 
Government and can be exercised only by issuing general or special order, 
a presumption of invoking the power in appropriate cases only is permis· 
sible to be drawn. Further, the extent to which maximum age limit may be 
relaxed cannot also to unlimited, as in the a candidates belonging to 
B Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as well as for other categories of 
candidates mentioned in the first part of the proviso, the limit is of five 
years. Thus the relaxation in case of other categories cannot also exceed five 
years and so it is difficult to agree with the Tribunal in the view it bas taken 
about the power in question being unguided. [667-C·H, 668-A-B] 
C 
2. The offending portion of Rule 6(1) are the words "from the can· 
didates of the district". The words "ordinarily' as used and placed in the 
sub-rule, refers to the periodicity which is said to be annual. It has no 
connection with the place of residence of the candidates. As to this part of 
the sub-rule, it has been pointed out by the Tribunal that he same is in 
conflict with Article 16(2) of the Constitution, which has laid down that no 
D citizen shall be discriminated against, inter alia on the ground of "place of 
birth, residence or any of them." The aforesaid part of the sub-rule is thus 
clearly violative of the aforesaid prohibition and bas, therefore rightly been 
held to the ultravires. [668-E-F] 
E 
F 
3.1. The view taken by the Tribunal qua the proviso to rule 5(1) is 
reversed and its view as regard the challenged part of rule 6(1) is affirmed. 
[668-H-G] 
3.2. As the selection bad, however, been made on the basis of the 
applications which has been invited from the candidates of concerned 
district alone, the selection made pursuant to such an invitation cannot be 
sustained. The selection of the respondents in C.A. No. 2419/1993 cannot, 
therefore, be upheld. The appellants are directed to issne fresh advertise· ·· 
ment by inviting applications for the posts in question from the candidates 
of all the districts of the State, as the requirement of residence within a 
State is not prohibited by Article 16(2). Appointments shall be made there· 
G after in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rules and other 
statutory provisions holding the field. (668-H, 669-A·B] 
Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, AIR (1984) SC 1420 relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2478-79 

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