Back
1996 Supreme(Ori) 215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.N. Phukan, A. Pasayat, JJ.
PRADIPTA KUMAR SAMANTA, ACHYUTANANDA SAHU, RATIKANTA PRUSTY, AKSHAYA KUMAR SAMAL, RASHMI RANJAN DAS, GOBINDA CHANDRA BEHERA AND SUBRAT KUMAR SAHU - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Original Jurisdiction Case Nos. 632, 1349, 1591, 1740, 1914, 1956 and 1989 of 1996
Decided On : 12-12-1996
S.C. Roy, Debasis Das, B.K. Mohanty, S.K. Dash, G.K. Mohanty, G.P. Samal, B.P. Pradhan, S.R. Swain, D.K. Nanda and A.K. Mohanty, for the Appellant; R.K. Mohanty, Additional Government Advocate, for the Respondent
Appointments cannot be made based on a select list for vacancies that occurred after the list was prepared. Such appointments are unconstitutional and violate the right to equality under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
Headnote:
The Court referred to various precedents to analyze the legal framework. The key legal provisions discussed include Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution, which enshrine the right to equality and the right to claim consideration for appointment to a post under the State. The Court also referred to the procedure for recruitment and the advertisement of vacancies. The Court held that appointments can only be made for the number of posts advertised and subsequent vacancies can only be filled in exceptional circumstances and in public interest. The Court emphasized the importance of giving equal opportunity to all eligible candidates.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners had applied for the post of Junior Assistant in the Registry of the Court. They appeared in the written test and viva voce test and their names appeared in the select list. However, they were not offered appointment. The select list was later cancelled and new vacancies were created. The petitioners challenged the cancellation of the select list and sought appointment. The Court held that appointments cannot be made based on a select list for vacancies that occurred after the list was prepared. The Court relied on various precedents to support this position. The Court dismissed the writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the facts and the legal question of whether appointments can be made based on a select list for subsequent vacancies. The Court referred to precedents and held that such appointments are unconstitutional and violate the right to equality under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The Court also held that the cancellation of the select list was justified based on the law laid down by the apex Court.
Ratio Decidendi: Appointments cannot be made based on a select list for vacancies that occurred after the list was prepared. Such appointments are unconstitutional and violate the right to equality under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
Result: The writ petitions are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S.N. Phukan, C.J. - In all thase seven writ petitions filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the facts and the point of law involved are the same and similar. Therefore, all of them are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. For the purpose of convenience, we state the facts of OJC No. 632 of 1996. The following facts are not disputed :
The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court issued notice dated 17-7-1991 inviting applications from candidates for filling up some posts of Junior Assistant in the Registry of this Court. The said notice is available at Anriexure-A/2 to' the. counter filed on behalf of the Registrar. Pursuant to the said notice, all the petitioners submitted applications and appeared in the written test as well as viva voce test. Thereafter a select list was prepared, a part of which has also been annexed as Annexure-B/2 to the aforesaid counter. The names of all the petitioners appear in the said select list. Considering the position of the petitioners in the select list, they were not offered appointment in the post of Junior Assistant. It may be stated that an undertaking was also taken from the petitioners that if all the posts of Junior Assistant were filled up according to the select list, then they will accept appointment, as Copyists. ? During that period, one writ petition was filed challenging the action of the opposite parties herein, which was registered as OJC No. 7958 of 1992, but the same was ultimately dismissed. The present petitioners have alleged that subsequently some persons were appointed as Copyists. From the counter we also find that two persons from general category and two persons from reserved category were appointed as such. Even then, the petitioners did, not come within the zone of consideration for appointment either as Junior Assistants or as Copyists. The select list prepared was directed to be kept valid for one year or till the next recruitment. Subsequently, more posts of Junior Assistant were sanctioned by the State Government in the Home Department and a proposal for holding recruitment was placed before the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice who by order dated 18- 1-1995 accepted the proposal and cancelled the select list on the ground that it had spent its life-span. The said order is annexed as Annexure-C/2 to the above counter, Thereafter a letter was issued to the Employment xchange for sponsoring candidates for the posts of Junior Assistant, which was challenged by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court and the same was registered as OJC No. 8595 of 1995 (Susanta Kumar Kar v. Registrar (Judicial). Orissa High Court, Cuttack). A Division Bench of this Court examined this matter and by judgment dated 14-11-1996, keeping in view the law laid down by the apex Court in the . Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh v. K. R. N. Visweshvyara Rao and Ors.: 1996 (7) Supreme 201, directed, inter alia, that the vacancies shall be notified in the notice-board of this Court and the notice-boards of all the District Courts of the State indicating the details relating to number of posts vacant, requisite qualification and the procedure for making the application.
3. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the earlier order was that the select list shal be valid for one year or till the next recruitment is held, the subsequent order of cancellation of the select list by the then Acting Chief Justice is illlegal and improper.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length. The only question which requires our determination is whether on the basis of the select list prepared in December, 1992, appointments can be made in vacancies which occurred long after.
5. In Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and Others the apex Court considered the constitutional validity in selecting candidates for the State Bank of India and other Nationalise
