Case Note & Summary
The appeals by special leave arose from an order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal dated 21 September 1995 in Original Application No. 2252 of 1993 and batch. The appellants had been impanelled in a Second List prepared on 9 February 1993 for appointment to the post of Sepoy in the 6th Battalion of the Orissa Special Armed Police. They alleged that although vacancies existed, only 16 candidates from the Second List were provisionally appointed on 30 March 1993 and no further appointments were made, resulting in hostile discrimination. An earlier advertisement in March 1992 led to a First List of 225 candidates prepared on 31 October 1992 under Police Order No. 286 of 1989, which was exhausted except for six reserved category candidates. The Commandant then sought a fresh list, and the D.I.G. directed preparation of a further list of about 200 candidates from earlier test takers. The Second List was prepared on 9 February 1993, but the I.G. of Police directed filling vacancies from it; however, only 16 provisional appointments were issued. The Tribunal held the First List vitiated due to improper constitution of the selection committee, found no necessity for a Second List, and noted that the I.G. had declared the Second List irregular. The Tribunal did not quash appointments already made but directed filling remaining vacancies as on 30 March 1993 from the Second List. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that both lists should be scrapped and fresh selection conducted according to law and merit, citing a recruitment racket. The State argued that the First List was valid, the Tribunal overlooked an addendum by the D.G.P., and appointments already made should not be disturbed. The Court, on 26 February 1996, issued notice to respondents to show cause why strictures should not be passed against police officials. A counter affidavit admitted gross irregularity in the Second List and stated that the D.G.P. had already directed no appointments from it and that departmental action was being initiated against defaulting officers. The Court deprecated the conduct of high-ranking officers and emphasized that appointments to public posts must be transparent, fair, and in accordance with prescribed procedure. Since the First List was not challenged before the Tribunal or the Court, the Court refused to quash it and noted the Tribunal's error regarding committee composition. However, given the admitted gross illegality of the Second List, the Court quashed the Second List and all appointments made under it, directed issuance of a fresh advertisement indicating available vacancies, and ordered selection according to prescribed procedure and merit. The Court further directed that if any candidate from the Second List had become age-barred, the competent authority may relax the age upon fresh application. Appeals were allowed with no order as to costs, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Orissa, for necessary action and reporting.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Public Employment - Transparency and Prescribed Procedure in Recruitment - Police Order No. 286 of 1989, No specific section mentioned - The Court emphasized that appointments to public posts must be absolutely transparent, fair, and in accordance with prescribed procedure; ad hoc appointments should not be encouraged unless public exigency demands and regular appointment would take time. In the present case, the Second List was prepared without existing vacancies and contrary to prescribed procedure, being an allurement to aspirants; the Court deprecated the conduct of high-ranking police officers and directed disciplinary action. Held that such irregular list must be quashed and fresh selection conducted (Paras Not mentioned). B) Service Law - Selection List Validity - Quashing of Irregular List and Appointments Thereunder - Police Order No. 286 of 1989, No specific section mentioned - The Second List dated 9 February 1993 prepared by the Commandant, O.S.A.P. 6th Battalion, Cuttack was held to be grossly irregular as admitted in the counter affidavit, and the Director General of Police had already directed not to make appointments from it. The Court quashed the Second List and all appointments made under it, directing issuance of fresh advertisement and selection according to merit and prescribed procedure. Held that appointments made from an invalid list cannot stand (Paras Not mentioned). C) Service Law - Judicial Review - Challenge to First List and Appointment Estoppel - Police Order No. 286 of 1989, No specific section mentioned - The appellants had not challenged the legality of the First List dated 31 October 1992 or appointments made pursuant to it before the Tribunal or the Supreme Court. The Court refused to quash the First List, observing that the Tribunal's conclusion about committee composition was incorrect because it overlooked an addendum; since no challenge was raised, there was no basis to interfere. Held that a court cannot quash a list not under challenge before it (Paras Not mentioned). D) Service Law - Age Relaxation - Consequential Relief for Candidates in Quashed List - Police Order No. 286 of 1989, No specific section mentioned - Because the Second List was quashed and fresh advertisement was to be issued, any candidate from the Second List who had become age-barred could apply pursuant to the fresh advertisement and the competent authority may relax the age and consider the case in accordance with law. Held that age relaxation is a necessary equitable relief to mitigate hardship caused by invalid recruitment process (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Second List prepared on 9 February 1993 for appointment to the post of Sepoy was valid and whether appointments made thereunder should be quashed; Whether the Tribunal's direction to fill posts based on vacancies as on 30 March 1993 was arbitrary; Whether the First List and appointments thereunder could be quashed in the absence of a challenge; Whether age relaxation should be granted to affected candidates
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. The Second List of candidates for appointment to the post of Sepoys prepared by the Commandant, O.S.A.P., 6th Battalion, Cuttack on 9 February 1993 was quashed, and any appointments made thereunder also stood quashed. The respondents were directed to issue a fresh advertisement indicating the number of vacancies available and to adjudge suitability of applicants in accordance with the prescribed procedure and then fill up the posts. If any person included in the Second List had become age-barred in the meantime and applied pursuant to the fresh advertisement, the competent authority might relax their age and consider their case in accordance with law. No order as to costs. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Cuttack for necessary action and to report the result of the action taken to the Registry of the Supreme Court.
Law Points
- Appointments to public posts must be absolutely transparent
- fair and in accordance with prescribed procedure
- A selection list prepared contrary to prescribed procedure and without existing vacancies is invalid and liable to be quashed
- Ad hoc appointments should not be encouraged unless public exigency demands
- Candidates whose list is quashed may be granted age relaxation on fresh application
- A list not challenged before the court cannot be quashed
