THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE, ODISHA versus PRAVAT KUMAR DASH & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 708 · Decided: 09-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE, ODISHA
v.
PRAVAT KUMAR DASH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6227–28 of 2019)
AUGUST 09, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law : Appointment – Post of gardeners – Issuance of
Circulars whereby selected applicants to be imparted pre-service
gardeners training in departmental farms by Director of Horticulture
– Selected applicants underwent training – However, few candidates
selected by Director of Horticulture without following the procedure
– Appointment of few candidates and later on termination of their
services – Subsequently, Government Order that not to fill up the
posts of Gardener and to create the equal number of posts of
Horticulture Workers – Said order set aside by the tribunal and
direction issued to the State to consider the applicants for
appointment against the existing vacant posts of Gardener – Writ
petition thereagainst, dismissed by the High Court – On appeal,
held: Circular contemplates that there is no guarantee of employment
after successful completion of training by the trainees – Appointment
to the post of Gardener is required to be made in terms of the
Recruitment Rules or in terms of the instructions issued – Selection
of the candidates for training was not by way of transparent
procedure nor there was any commitment to appoint candidates who
have completed training as Gardeners – Even if a candidate has
completed training, he cannot seek right of employment unless such
public posts are advertised and filled up by giving opportunity to
all similarly situated candidates – Directions of the tribunal, as upheld
by the High Court, wholly unjustified as there cannot be any
direction for appointment only for the reason that the candidates
have undergone training – Furthermore, no right can be conferred
on the persons who were terminated on the basis of equity in favour
of the other candidates – Thus, the order passed by the High Court
and the tribunal are set aside .
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 708
708
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
709
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The respondents were subjected to training in
pursuance of circular dated July 4, 1998. The training was
proposed in the circular dated April 16, 1998. It clearly
contemplates that there is no guarantee in the matter of
employment after successful completion of training by the
trainees. At that time, training was contemplated only in the
School of Horticulture, Khurda during the year 1998–1999.
Subsequently, the training was proposed to be held in ten selected
departmental farms but there is no assurance in the said
communication dated July 4, 1998 that candidates would be
appointed. The appointment to the post of Gardener is required
to be made in terms of the Recruitment Rules if any, applicable
thereto or in terms of instructions issued under executive power
of the State but the appointments cannot be made merely for the
reason that a candidate has undergone training. Out of 1359
candidates who applied in pursuance of circular dated July 4, 1998,
362 candidates were selected for training but the manner of their
selection has not come on record. [Para 17][716-A-C]
1.2 The selection of the candidates for training was not by
way of transparent procedure nor there was any commitment to
appoint candidates who have completed training as Gardeners,
therefore, even if a candidate has completed training, he cannot
seek right of employment unless such posts are advertised and
filled up by giving opportunity to all similarly situated candidates.
The directions of the Tribunal, as affirmed by the High Court,
that the candidates are intended to be employed are wholly
unjustified as there cannot be any direction for appointment only
for the reason that the candidates have undergone training. It is
not necessary for this Court to examine whether the post of
Gardener has been upgraded to the post of Horticulture Extension
Worker or that it is the same post having a different nomenclature.
The fact remains that all public posts are required to be filled up
by giving an opportunity to all the candidates to apply and to
compete for the post. [Para 18][716-D-F]
THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE, ODISHA v.
PRAVAT KUMAR DASH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
1.3 The services of six persons who were appointed were
ordered to be terminated on December 10, 1999 but even if their
termination was set aside on April 24, 2001, it would not confe

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