9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Dispute of seniority in the Orissa Administrative Services. 2. Validity of the 'year of allotment' principle. 3. Validity of the Orissa Administrative Services Class II (Appointment of Officers Validation) Act, 1986. 4. Seniority of direct recruits vs. mergerists. Detailed Analysis: 1. Dispute of Seniority in the Orissa Administrative Services: The primary issue in these matters was the dispute over seniority between the direct recruits and the mergerists within the Orissa Administrative Services. The contention arose due to the integration of the Orissa Administrative Service Class II (O.A.S.II) and Orissa Subordinate Administrative Service Class III (O.S.A.S. III) into a single cadre known as O.A.S.II with a senior branch (S.B.) and a junior branch (J.B.). The Government of Orissa passed a resolution on January 7, 1972, to effectuate this merger, and the integration was to be completed in a phased manner over ten years. However, on December 21, 1973, the two branches were abolished, and a new cadre of O.A.S.II was constituted, placing all members of O.S.A.S. III below the last person in the existing O.A.S.II(S.B.) in the seniority list. 2. Validity of the 'Year of Allotment' Principle: The principle of the 'year of allotment' was central to determining seniority. The Orissa Administrative Service Class II (Appointment by Promotion, Transfer and Selection) Regulations, 1959, and the Orissa Administrative Service Class II (Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regulation, 1959, provided for the determination of the 'year of allotment' for members of O.A.S.II. The Orissa High Court, in Ananta Kumar Bose v. State of Orissa, upheld the principle of the 'year of allotment,' noting that it had been a long-standing practice that resulted in accrued rights and benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, emphasizing that the principle should remain sacrosanct and not be disturbed. 3. Validity of the Orissa Administrative Services Class II (Appointment of Officers Validation) Act, 1986: The Orissa Administrative Services Class II (Appointment of Officers Validation) Act, 1986, was enacted to validate certain appointments and seniority determinations. Section 3 of the Act aimed to validate the appointment of merger recruits and the determination of their seniority vis-a-vis direct recruits for the years 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, and 1974. However, the Supreme Court found Section 3(2)(a) of the Act, which placed deemed promotees of the year 1972 above the direct recruits of the same year, to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that there was no reasonable classification to differentiate between direct recruits of 1970, 1971, and 1972, and thus, the provision was arbitrary and liable to be struck down. 4. Seniority of Direct Recruits vs. Mergerists: The Supreme Court addressed the seniority dispute between direct recruits and mergerists. It was argued that direct recruits who were assigned 1972 as their 'year of allotment' should be senior to the mergerists. The Court upheld the concept of the 'year of allotment' and declared that the direct recruits of 1972 should be ranked senior to the mergerists. The Court also noted that the direct recruits of 1973 should be senior to the mergerists, following the prevailing system of promoting Class III officers to Class II and fixing inter se seniority in accordance with the regulations. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the principle of the 'year of allotment' as a traditional and tested modality to regulate seniority. It declared Section 3(2)(a) of the Orissa Administrative Services Class II (Appointment of Officers Validation) Act, 1986, as violative of Article 14 and extended the benefit of the Ananta Kumar Bose case to the 1972 direct recruits. The Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 750 of 1987 and Writ Petition No. 12770/85, while partially allowing Writ Petition No. 1044/87. The dispute regarding the seniority of 1973 direct recruits was left for determination before the State Administrative Tribunal.
|
