Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose in the context of ad hoc appointments and confirmation in the Law Department of the State of Orissa. The appellant and the first respondent had both joined the Department on January 27, 1986. The appellant claimed to have been appointed on ad hoc basis by proceedings dated October 26, 1990. A selection committee constituted for their selection had found the first respondent to be number one and the appellant as number 3 in the list. Regular appointments were admittedly subject to confirmation by the Orissa Public Service Commission. However, instead of sending the names to the Commission for consideration, the Minister recommended the appointment of the appellant. The first respondent approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal staking his claim for confirmation. The Tribunal directed the Government to refer the matter, in terms of the Rules, to the Commission. The Commission, after considering the respective merits of all candidates, selected D. Mullick as number 1, B.N. Sahoo as number 2, the appellant as number 3, and Gautam Kumar Chakraborty as number 4, and recommended for appointment. Consequently, the application of the respondent was disposed of. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal passed on August 27, 1993 in O.A. No.631 of 1992, the appellant filed an appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court. In the face of these facts, the Court observed that there was no chance for the appellant to argue on merits. The appellant's counsel, realising the insurmountable difficulty, contended that the remarks made by the Tribunal would be construed as adverse to the appellant for her future prospects. The Supreme Court found no justification for such an apprehension, noting that the Tribunal had quite rightly pointed out the sad way in which the Law Department works. The Court held that claims would be considered only according to rules, de hors any adverse remark. Accordingly, the Court did not find it a fit case for interference, dismissed the appeal, and awarded no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Ad Hoc Appointment and Confirmation - Regular Appointments Require Orissa Public Service Commission Approval - Not mentioned - The appellant and the first respondent joined the Law Department of Orissa on January 27, 1986; the appellant claimed ad hoc appointment by proceedings dated October 26, 1990; the selection committee ranked the first respondent as number 1 and the appellant as number 3, but the Minister recommended the appellant instead of referring the names to the Commission; the Orissa Administrative Tribunal directed the Government to refer the matter to the Commission, which after considering merits selected D. Mullick as number 1, B.N. Sahoo as number 2, appellant as number 3 and the first respondent as number 4 and recommended appointment; the Supreme Court found no chance for the appellant to argue on merits and dismissed the appeal - Held that regular appointment requires confirmation by Orissa Public Service Commission and no interference was warranted. B) Service Law - Adverse Remarks by Tribunal - Remarks Against Department Not Adverse to Individual - Not mentioned - The appellant's counsel contended that the remarks made by the Tribunal would be construed as adverse to the appellant for her future prospects; the Supreme Court held that there was no justification for such apprehension because the Tribunal had rightly pointed out the sad way in which the Law Department works and claims would be considered only according to rules de hors any adverse remark - Held that the Tribunal's remarks do not prejudice the appellant's future prospects.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal dated August 27, 1993 in O.A. No.631 of 1992 directing reference of the matter to the Orissa Public Service Commission and the consequential selection required interference by the Supreme Court; and whether the remarks made by the Tribunal would adversely affect the appellant's future prospects
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no chance for the appellant to argue on merits and that the Tribunal's remarks would not be adverse; claims would be considered only according to rules de hors any adverse remark; no costs were awarded.
Law Points
- Regular appointments are subject to confirmation by Orissa Public Service Commission
- claims for confirmation must be considered only according to rules de hors any adverse remarks
- Tribunal's remarks criticizing the Law Department are not adverse to individual employee's future prospects
