9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1949 - SC - Indian LawsSelection/promotion against the vacancies in the recruitment year 2008 - convention of review D.P.C. - accrued or vested right - whether the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court was justified in directing the State to convene a review D.P.C. for considering the case of the contesting Respondents and other eligible officers, and directing it to complete the recruitment process for recruitment year of 2008 to the 150 vacant posts? HELD THAT - The contesting Respondents cannot claim an accrued or vested right for selection or promotion to OAS Class-II posts in the year 2008, merely on the basis of their names being forwarded by the respective Departmental Authorities - When the recruitment process for 2008 was initiated vide Letter dated April 28, 2008 by the State, the extant Rules and Regulations occupying the field for selection and promotion to OAS Class-II posts were the OAS Class II Rules, 1978 and the OAS Class II Regulations, 1978. Rule 3 of the OAS Class II, Rules 1978 provided that recruitment to OAS Class II posts was to be made by three methods-first, direct recruitment by competitive examination Rule 3(a) ; second, promotion from amongst Gazetted Officers of a certain class Rule 3(b) ; and third, selection of non-Gazetted Officers Rule 3(c) - The proportion of candidates to be recruited by the methods specified above as per Rule 8 of the OAS Class II Rules, 1978 was-50% by direct recruitment, 30% by promotion, and 20% by selection. In the present case, the names of 559 candidates, including the contesting Respondents, were merely recommended by their respective Departmental Authorities Under Regulation 6. The 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 the Orissa Public Service Commission before the State Government for the purposes of appointment as against the vacancies of 2008 - the contesting Respondents had not acquired an accrued or vested right of selection or promotion to OAS Class-II posts in accordance with the OAS Class II Rules, 1978 and the OAS Class II Regulations, 1978, since their names had never been considered for selection or promotion beyond the stage contemplated Under Regulation 6. Tthe judgment of the Division Bench is liable to be set aside since the contesting Respondents did not have a vested or fructified right of promotion to OAS Class II posts which had arisen during the recruitment year 2008. The names of the contesting Respondents were merely recommended for consideration. In the meanwhile, in 2009 the State had re-structured the cadre, and abolished the OAS Class II cadre. The re-constituted cadre viz. the Orissa Revenue Service Group 'B' cadre came in its place. Hence, the direction of the Division Bench to appoint the contesting Respondents in the vacancies which had occurred in the abolished cadre, in accordance with the repealed 1978 Rules, was contrary to law, and liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the High Court's direction to convene a review D.P.C. 2. Accrued or vested right to promotion of the contesting Respondents. 3. Applicability of old rules versus new rules post cadre restructuring. 4. Validity of the High Court's reliance on previous judgments. Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of the High Court's Direction to Convene a Review D.P.C. The Division Bench of the Orissa High Court had directed the State to convene a review Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) to consider the cases of the contesting Respondents and complete the recruitment process for 150 vacant OAS Class-II posts for the recruitment year 2008. The Supreme Court found this direction erroneous. The Court emphasized that no right had accrued in favor of the contesting Respondents merely because their names were recommended by their respective Departmental Authorities. The recruitment process did not proceed beyond the initial recommendation stage, and no final list of selected candidates was prepared by the Orissa Public Service Commission. 2. Accrued or Vested Right to Promotion of the Contesting Respondents The Court held that the contesting Respondents could not claim an accrued or vested right to promotion to OAS Class-II posts in 2008 merely based on their names being forwarded. The recruitment process under the OAS Class II Rules, 1978, and OAS Class II Regulations, 1978, had several steps that were not completed, including the preparation of a list by the Selection Board, consultation with the Orissa Public Service Commission, and the final approval by the State Government. Hence, the contesting Respondents did not acquire any right to promotion. 3. Applicability of Old Rules Versus New Rules Post Cadre Restructuring The Supreme Court noted that the State had restructured the Orissa Administrative Service cadre in 2009, abolishing the OAS Class-II posts and creating the Orissa Revenue Service Group 'B' posts. The contesting Respondents did not challenge this restructuring. The Court cited previous rulings, including Deepak Agarwal and Union of India v. Krishna Kumar, to assert that the right to be considered for promotion accrues on the date of consideration of eligible candidates, not when vacancies arise. Therefore, the contesting Respondents could not claim appointments under the old rules for an abolished cadre. 4. Validity of the High Court's Reliance on Previous Judgments The High Court had relied on the decision in Mukti Ranjan Acharya and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors., which allowed promotions under the repealed OAS Class II Rules, 1978. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (S.L.P.) in limine does not constitute a binding precedent. The Court reiterated that the contesting Respondents did not have a vested right to promotion under the repealed rules for an abolished cadre. Conclusion The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, holding that the contesting Respondents did not have a vested or accrued right to promotion to OAS Class-II posts in 2008. The Court emphasized that the recruitment process had not been completed and the cadre had been restructured, abolishing the OAS Class-II posts. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's orders were set aside.
|
