Case Note & Summary
These 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 were candidates whose names appeared 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. The dispute concerned the irregular preparation of recruitment lists and the arbitrary appointment of only a few persons from the second list despite claims of existing vacancies. In March 1992, an advertisement invited applications for Sepoy posts. Pursuant to Police Order No. 286 of 1989, a selection committee prepared a first list of 225 candidates on 31 October 1992, which was exhausted except for six reserved category candidates. After the first list was exhausted, the Commandant wrote to the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 7 January 1993 requesting preparation of a fresh list to fill existing vacancies. The DIG directed preparation of a further list of about 200 candidates from those who had earlier appeared in the recruitment test. This second list was prepared on 9 February 1993. The Inspector General of Police directed the Commandant on 12 February 1993 to fill vacancies from the second list, but the Commandant issued provisional appointment letters to only 16 persons and took no action for others. The appellants approached the Tribunal, alleging hostile discrimination and arbitrary action. The Tribunal held that the first list was vitiated because the selection committee was not duly constituted and that there was no need to prepare a second list unless Sepoys were transferred out. It recorded that the Inspector General of Armed Police had intimated that the second list was irregularly prepared and had no validity. However, the Tribunal did not quash appointments under either list and directed that the remaining candidates from the second list be appointed against vacancies available on 30 March 1993. The appellants challenged this direction. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that both lists should be scrapped and fresh recruitment conducted strictly on merit and prescribed procedure. The State argued that the first list had no infirmity and that the Tribunal overlooked an addendum regarding committee composition; it also submitted that appointments already made should not be disturbed. The Court observed that appointments to public posts must be transparent, fair, and in accordance with prescribed procedure. It deprecated the conduct of high-ranking police officers who prepared the second list contrary to norms even when no vacancies existed, causing disrepute to the police administration. A counter-affidavit admitted gross irregularity in preparing the second list and stated that disciplinary action was being initiated against errant officers. The Court held that since the appellants had not challenged the first list or appointments under it, it could not quash that list; it also noted the Tribunal's error regarding committee composition due to the addendum. The second list was quashed altogether, along with all appointments made under it. The Court directed the respondents to issue a fresh advertisement disclosing vacancies, adjudge suitability per prescribed procedure, and fill the posts. It further permitted age relaxation for candidates from the quashed list who might have become age-barred. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs, and a copy was directed to be sent to the Chief Secretary for necessary action and report to the Registry.
Headnote
A) Public Employment - Transparency and Fairness - Recruitment lists must be prepared in accordance with prescribed procedure and not without vacancies - Police Order No. 286 of 1989 - The court held that appointments to public posts must be absolutely transparent and fair and follow prescribed procedure; the Second List prepared on 9 February 1993 was contrary to procedure and without vacancies, so it was scrapped - Held that public employment cannot be manipulated through irregular lists. B) Judicial Review - Challenge to Selection Lists - A party who did not challenge the validity of an earlier selection list cannot seek its quashing - Police Order No. 286 of 1989 - The appellants did not challenge the First List or appointments made under it before the Tribunal or in the Supreme Court; therefore the court declined to quash that list, also noting the Tribunal overlooked an addendum on committee composition - Held that unchallenged action cannot be set aside. C) Administrative Law - Arbitrary Exercise of Power by Police Officials - Preparation of recruitment lists contrary to norms without vacancies was deprecated and disciplinary action directed - Police Order No. 286 of 1989 - The court observed that high-ranking police officers prepared the Second List contrary to prescribed norms even though no vacancies existed, causing disrepute to the police administration; it expected the State Government to take disciplinary measures - Held that such conduct was not in public interest and deserved strictures. D) Recruitment - Age Relaxation - Candidates from quashed list may be considered with age relaxation on fresh application - Police Order No. 286 of 1989 - Because the Second List was quashed, if any persons included therein had become age-barred, the competent authority may relax their age when they apply in response to a fresh advertisement - Held that affected candidates should not be prejudiced by official irregularity.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Second List of candidates prepared for appointment to the post of Sepoy in the 6th Battalion on 9 February 1993 was legally valid and whether appointments made thereunder should be quashed; whether the Orissa Administrative Tribunal's direction to fill vacancies existing on 30 March 1993 from that list was correct; and whether the First List and appointments made pursuant to it could be interfered with in the absence of any challenge by the appellants.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. The Second List of candidates prepared by Commandant O.S.A.P., 6th Battalion, Cuttack dated 9 February 1993 was quashed and all appointments made thereunder were quashed. Respondents directed to issue fresh advertisement showing vacancies, adjudge suitability per prescribed procedure, and fill posts. Age relaxation permissible for affected candidates if age-barred. No costs. Copy to Chief Secretary for action and report.
Law Points
- Appointments to public posts must be absolutely transparent and fair and in accordance with prescribed procedure
- Recruitment lists prepared contrary to prescribed procedure must be scrapped
- Lists prepared without existing vacancies are illegal
- Arbitrary exercise of power by police officers in preparing recruitment lists without vacancies is deprecated and warrants disciplinary action
- Age relaxation permissible for candidates adversely affected by quashed irregular list
- A party who did not challenge the validity of an earlier selection list cannot seek its quashing
- Selection committee composition must follow applicable rules including addendums issued by competent authority
- Ad-hoc appointments should not be encouraged except in public exigencies
