2003(7) Supreme 14
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Orissa High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
State of Orissa and Ors. -Appellants
versus
Bhikari Charan Khuntia & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7938-7940 of 2003
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 17919-17921 of 2002)
With
Civil Appeal No. 7941/2003
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 23777/02)
And
Civil Appeal No. 7942/2003
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23778/02)
Decided on 22-9-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Mukul Rohatgi, Additional Solicitor General, Radha Shyam Jena, Advocates.
For the Respondents : B.A. Mohanti, Sr. Advocate, Ms M. Tripathy and Ashok Mathur, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.
2. Since by common judgment learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court disposed of three writ petitions (O.J.C. Nos. 14221 of 1996, 458 of 1997 and 4091 of 1997), impugned in these appeals, the present judgment shall govern each one of them.
3. Factual position, almost undisputed, is as follows:
Respondents filed writ petitions before the Orissa High Court taking the stand that their names were sponsored by the concerned employment exchanges. When requisitions were sent to them by competent functionaries of the State their names were sponsored. The requisition indicated that 150 posts of Junior Assistants were to be filled up by direct recruitment in the cadre of Local Fund Service for appointment in different Municipalities/Notified Area Councils (for short N.A.Cs. ). The proforma attached to the requisition letter in question indicated the types of workers required as Junior Assistants in the cadre of Local Fund Service and the minimum qualifications for the post was H.S.C. It was also indicated in the requisition that preference will be given to those who have passed Local Self Government Diploma Examination. Writ petitioners by writ applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution ) made grievance before the High Court that though their names were sponsored by the employment exchanges, no interview was conducted and no action was taken to fill up the posts. Prayers in the writ petitions were as follows:
"(i) issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to complete the recruitment process and select the petitioners for appointment as Junior Assistants in Municipalities/N.A.Cs. and
(ii) pass such other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. The State of Orissa filed counter affidavit, inter alia, taking the stand that the selection could not be held as the vacancy position of all urban local bodies could not be specifically ascertained. It was also stated that the vacancies assessed had been found already filled up through irregular promotions and appointments made by the respective local bodies. Accordingly instructions were issued to revert/retrench all such irregular appointees or promotees. Further counter affidavit was filed indicating that the Government took a decision abolishing 50% base level posts as on 1.7.1999. It was also indicated that w.e.f. 30.11.1999 policy decision was taken to abolish octroi and 3400 persons who were rendered surplus to be adjusted. The number included a large number of clerical staff also. As there was no scope for further appointment, the process which was initiated by getting names from the employment exchanges was abandoned. After considering the rival stands, the High Court by the impugned judgment gave the following directions:
"Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the three writ petitions, and submission of the learned Standing Counsel and the averments made in para-6 of the counter, it is directed that the opposite parties shall hold interview for selection of candidates for appointment to the posts of Junior Assistants in the cadre of Local Fund service within a period of three months from today. While preparing the merit list, preference will be given to the candidates who have passed Local Self Government Diploma.
It is contended by Mr. Das that some petitioners have become overaged in the meantime for appointment. It appears from Annexure-4 that instructions were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and some directly applied for the post, but till today no interview has been conducted. Keeping in view the said fact in my opinion, the authorities shall also consider age of the petitioners who are found to be overaged. It is further directed that after preparation of merit list, appointment shall be made depending on the availability of vacancies."
5. In support of the a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.