2019 Supreme(SC) 537

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra, JJ.
State of Orissa & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Dhirendra Sundar Das & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2019 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4976 of 2019] With Civil Appeal No. 4647 of 2019 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4977 of 2019]; Civil Appeal No .4648 of 2019 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4978 of 2019]; Civil Appeal No. 4649 of 2019 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4979 of 2019]; Civil Appeal No. 4650 of 2019 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4980 of 2019]; Civil Appeal No. 4651 of 2019 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11861 of 2019]; (Diary No. 13938 of 2019) Civil Appeal No. 4652 of 2019; [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11862 of 2019]; (Diary No. 13946 of 2019)
Decided on : 06-05-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appointments by way of promotion or selection could be made only from amongst candidates whose names featured in final list prepared by Commission and placed before State Government.
(2) In limine dismissal of disposal at threshold without giving any detailed reasons, does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent under Article 141 of Constitution.
(3) No one can claim any lien over a abolished class.

Headnote:(A) Service Law – Appointment – Appointment by way of promotion to Orissa Administrative Service Class – II cadre having 150 vacancies – Convening of Review DPC – Contesting Respondents cannot claim an accrued or vested right for selection or promotion to OAS Class – II posts in year 2008, merely on the basis of their names being forwarded by respective Departmental Authorities – Recruitment process by way of selection or promotion, as the case may be, initiated in accordance with Regulation 6 would culminate on making of a final list as per Regulation 10 – Appointments by way of promotion or selection could be made only from amongst candidates whose names featured in final list prepared by Commission and placed before State Government – In present case, names of 559 candidates, including contesting Respondents, were merely recommended by their respective Departmental Authorities under Regulation 6 – Recruitment process did not proceed any further in accordance with Regulations 7, 8, 9 and 10 – No final list of selected candidates was placed by Orissa Public Service Commission before State Government for the purposes of appointment as against vacancies of 2008 – As such, contesting Respondents who had merely been recommended by their respective Departmental Authorities could not be considered to be eligible for appointment by way of promotion or selection under erstwhile OAS Class II Regulations, 1978, since steps set out in regulations mentioned below had not been completed prior to repeal of old OAS Class II Rules, 1978 and OAS Class II Regulations, 1978 – Contesting Respondents had not acquired accrued or vested right of selection or promotion to OAS Class – II posts in accordance with OAS Class II Rules, 1978 and OAS Class II Regulations, 1978, since their names had never been considered for selection or promotion beyond stage contemplated under Regulation 6 – Contesting Respondents cannot claim any lien over abolished OAS Class – II posts which were governed by old OAS Class II Rules, 1978 and OAS Class II Regulations, 1978 – Direction of Division Bench to appoint contesting Respondents in vacancies which had occurred in abolished cadre, in accordance with repealed 1978 Rules, was contrary to law and liable to be set aside. [Rules 3, 6 and 8 of Orissa Administrative Service, Class II (Recruitment) Rules, 1978 ; Regulations 7 and 8 of Orissa Administrative Service, Class – II (Appointment by Promotion and Selection) Regulations, 1978] (Paras 7.1, 7.10, 7.12, 7.14, 7.19 and 8)

       (B) Constitution of India – Article 141 – Binding Precedent – Dismissal of a S.L.P. in limine simply implies that case before this Court was not considered worthy of examination for a reason, which may be other than merits of case – Such in limine dismissal at threshold without giving any detailed reasons, does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent under Article 141 of Constitution. (Para 7. 22)

       Facts of Case:

       Concerned Departmental Authorities forwarded names of 559 candidates, including contesting Respondents, for consideration to be promoted/selected to OAS Class – II posts. Issue which arises for our consideration in present Civil Appeals is whether Division Bench of Orissa High Court was justified in directing State to convene a review D.P.C. for considering case of contesting Respondents and other eligible officers and directing it to complete recruitment process for recruitment year of 2008 to 150 vacant posts.

       Findings of Court:

       Judgment of Division Bench is liable to be set aside since contesting Respondents did not have a vested or fructified right of promotion to OAS Class II posts which had arisen during recruitment year 2008. Names of contesting Respondents were merely recommended for consideration. In meanwhile, in 2009 State had restructured cadre and abolished OAS Class II cadre. Reconstituted cadre viz. Orissa Revenue Service Group ‘B’ cadre came in its place. Hence, direction of Division Bench to appoint contesting Respondents in vacancies which had occurred in abolished cadre, in accordance with repealed 1978 Rules, was contrary to law, and liable to be set aside.

       Result : Appeals allowed.