JUDGMENT

AHMADI, J. :—Special leave granted in S.L.Ps. Nos. 18926/91 and 389/92.

2. In exercise of power conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Orissa enacted the Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment to Posts of Lower Division Assistants in the Offices of Heads of Department) Rules, 1975, (for short the Rules) which were brought into force with effect from January 1, 1976. Rule 3 thereof provides that the recruitment to the said posts shall be made by means of a competitive examination to be held once in every year. The eligibility criteria is laid down in Rule 8. The minimum educational qualification prescribed under Rule 8(b) for the said post is that the candidate should have passed Intermediate in Arts / Science or Commerce or an equivalent qualification. Rule 13 provides that the relative seniority of each candidate shall be determined with reference to his position in the examination held in a particular year. Rule 14 deals with relaxation and is in the following terms :

"When the Government are of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do it may by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules in respect of any class or category of persons in public interest."

A proviso came to be added to Rule 13 that those appointed by relaxation under Rule 14 shall in that year, rank below validly recruited candidates under Rule 3 or the first part of Rule 11 of the Rules.

3. In the backdrop of these provisions the question which arises for consideration is whether the appointments of candidates made dehors these rules could be regularised in exercise of the power of relaxation conferred on the Government by the afore quoted Rule 14 of the Rules, and if yes, whether such irregular appointees whose services have been regularised under Rule 14 could be placed above the regularly appointed incumbents in seniority on the basis of the length of service? On a plain reading of Rule 14 it is obvious that the relaxation power, so called, can be exercised in respect of a class or category of persons when the Government are of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do in public interest and for reasons to be recorded in writing. The rule empowers the Government to relax any of the provisions of these rules in public interest. Now if we turn to the Government Order in Civil Appeals Nos. 2708-09 and 1673-74 of 1991 we find that the orders dated January 3, 1985 are in identical terms, the relevant part whereof reads as under :

" .......... after careful consideration Government have been pleased to relax the appointment of the following nine irregular L.D. Assistants of Directorate of Mining and Geology under provisions of Rule 14 of the O.M.S. (Method of Recruitment of Junior Assistants in the Office of Heads of Departments) Rules 1975 on compassionate grounds in public interest."

The names of the concerned irregular appointees have then been stated without prejudice to inter se seniority. In the other two appeals arising from Special Leave Petitions Nos. 18926/91 and 389/92 the text of the order is somewhat different from the one extracted above. In both these cases the order, though differing from the above extracted text, is identical in language, the relevant part whereof reads thus :

"I am directed to say that a proposal for regularisation of the following irregular recruits appointed as Junior Assistants in the office of the Chief Engineer, P.H., Orissa in violation of the provisions contained in Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment to the Posts of Lower Division Assistants in the Offices of the Heads of Department) Rules, 1975, was under active consideration of Government.

xx xx xx xx xx xx

After careful consideration, Government has been pleased to regularise the irregular appointment of these 18 recruits under Rule 14 of the Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment to the Posts of Lower Division Assistants in