1990 (1) TMI 323 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dispute of seniority in the Orissa Administrative Services.
2. Validity and application of the 'year of allotment' principle.
3. Challenge to the Orissa Administrative Service Class II (Appointment of Officers Validation) Act, 1986.
4. Seniority disputes related to direct recruits and mergerists.
5. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Dispute of Seniority in the Orissa Administrative Services:
The judgment addresses a serious dispute regarding the seniority of officers in the Orissa Administrative Services. Initially, there were two cadres: Orissa Administrative Service Class II (O.A.S. II) and Orissa Subordinate Administrative Service Class III (O.S.A.S. III). These were merged into a single cadre, O.A.S. II, with senior and junior branches. The integration aimed to be completed in a phased manner, but was fully realized by December 21, 1973, when all members were placed in a unified seniority list.

2. Validity and Application of the 'Year of Allotment' Principle:
The principle of the 'year of allotment' was crucial for determining seniority. This principle was upheld by the Orissa High Court in Ananta Kumar Bose v. State of Orissa, which found that the long-standing practice of assigning the 'year of allotment' should not be disturbed. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing the importance of maintaining continuity and tradition in service regulations. The principle was deemed sacrosanct and not open to challenge.

3. Challenge to the Orissa Administrative Service Class II (Appointment of Officers Validation) Act, 1986:
The Validation Act aimed to validate certain appointments and seniority determinations. Section 3(2)(a) of the Act, however, was found to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It unjustly placed deemed promotees of the year 1972 above the direct recruits of the same year, creating an unreasonable classification. The Court declared this section ultra vires, extending the benefits of the Ananta Kumar Bose case to the 1972 direct recruits.

4. Seniority Disputes Related to Direct Recruits and Mergerists:
The Court addressed specific seniority disputes, particularly between direct recruits and mergerists. It was argued that respondents 4-13 were improperly appointed to O.A.S. II, but the Court found no basis for this claim as it was not pressed before the High Court. The Court upheld the seniority of the 1972 direct recruits over the mergerists, reinforcing the 'year of allotment' principle.

5. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:
The Court found that the Validation Act's provision placing deemed promotees of 1972 above direct recruits of the same year violated Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. The arbitrary classification lacked a reasonable basis, leading to its invalidation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the principle of the 'year of allotment' as a traditional and tested method for determining seniority, rejecting challenges to this principle. The Orissa Administrative Service Class II (Appointment of Officers Validation) Act, 1986, was partially invalidated for violating Article 14. The judgments in Civil Appeal No. 750 of 1987 and Writ Petition Nos. 12770/85 and 1044/87 were dismissed, except for the declaration of Section 3(2)(a) as ultra vires. The seniority dispute in Writ Petition No. 929 of 1987 was left for determination by the State Administrative Tribunal, following the principles laid down in this judgment.