Supreme Court Partly Allows State Appeal in Orissa District Revenue Service Recruitment Rules Challenge — Upholds Age Relaxation Proviso but Strikes Down District Residence Clause. Rule 6(1) words 'from the candidates of the district' held violative of Article 16(2) Constitution; proviso to Rule 5(1) construed with implied guidelines, setting aside Tribunal's finding of unbridled power.

Case Note & Summary

The case arose from a challenge before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal to certain provisions of the Orissa District Revenue Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules), 1983. The State of Orissa and others appealed against the Tribunal's order. The Supreme Court considered two main provisions: the proviso to Rule 5(1) dealing with upper age relaxation for direct recruitment, and a part of Rule 6(1) restricting recruitment to candidates of the district. Rule 5(1) provided that candidates must be below 28 years, with a proviso allowing relaxation up to five years for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and candidates with actual work experience in Settlement/Consolidation, and for "such other categories as Government may, by general or special order, specify from time to time." The Tribunal had held the underlined portion of the proviso conferred unbridled power without guidelines. Rule 6(1) provided that direct recruitment to cadres of Revenue Inspectors, Amins and Collection Moharirs for the district shall ordinarily be made annually by the Collector, who shall invite applications from the candidates of the district through advertisement in newspapers of the State. The offending words were "from the candidates of the district." The Tribunal held this clause violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution. The legal issues were whether the proviso to Rule 5(1) was unguided and ultra vires, and whether the phrase "from the candidates of the district" in Rule 6(1) violated Article 16(2) prohibiting discrimination on grounds of place of birth, residence or any of them. The State/appellants argued that the proviso contained sufficient guidelines, as the categories had to be analogous to those specified, and the power was with the Government to be exercised by general or special order. They also argued that the word "ordinarily" in Rule 6(1) made the district residence requirement not absolute. The respondents supported the Tribunal's view that the power was unguided and the district restriction was discriminatory. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal on Rule 5(1). It held the proviso contained guidelines: first, the "other categories" had to be akin to the two specifically mentioned categories, like other Backward Classes; second, the power was conferred on the Government and could be exercised only by issuing general or special order, raising a presumption of proper exercise; third, the extent of relaxation could not exceed five years, consistent with the limit for SC/ST and the specified categories. Thus the power was not unguided. On Rule 6(1), the Court held the word "ordinarily" referred to the periodicity of annual recruitment, not to the place of residence. Therefore the phrase "from the candidates of the district" was clearly in conflict with Article 16(2) and was ultra vires. The Court also noted that residence within a State is not prohibited by Article 16(2), as held in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1420. The Supreme Court reversed the Tribunal's view on the proviso to Rule 5(1) subject to observations on its true purport and reach, affirmed the Tribunal's view on Rule 6(1), and held that selection made on the basis of district-limited applications could not be sustained. The selection of respondents in C.A. No. 2419/1993 was set aside. The appellants were directed to issue fresh advertisement inviting applications from candidates of all districts of the State, and appointments were to be made thereafter in accordance with the Rules and other statutory provisions.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

Appeals disposed of: Tribunal's view on proviso to Rule 5(1) reversed subject to observations; Tribunal's view on Rule 6(1) affirmed; selection of respondents in C.A. No. 2419/1993 set aside; appellants directed to issue fresh advertisement inviting applications from candidates of all districts of the State, and appointments to be made thereafter in accordance with the Rules and other statutory provisions.

Law Points