Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a dispute over the appointment of Gardeners in the Horticulture Department of Odisha. The respondents were among 362 candidates selected irregularly for pre-service Gardener training in departmental farms instead of the approved School of Horticulture, Khurda. The training circular explicitly stated that training does not guarantee employment. Despite this, the Odisha Administrative Tribunal and the High Court directed the State to consider the respondents for appointment against vacant Gardener posts, relying on the fact that six similarly situated candidates had been reinstated by court order. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions, holding that the respondents had no right to appointment merely because they underwent training. The Court emphasized that the training was irregular and that the circular clearly disclaimed any guarantee of employment. It further held that the respondents could not claim parity with the six illegally appointed persons, as illegality cannot be perpetuated. The Court also upheld the State's policy decision to abolish the post of Gardener and create Horticulture Extension Workers, noting that such policy decisions are within the executive's domain and not subject to judicial interference unless arbitrary. The appeals were allowed, and the orders of the Tribunal and High Court were set aside.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Right to Employment - Training does not confer right to appointment - The circular clearly stated that no guarantee of employment is given after training - The respondents were selected irregularly and trained outside the approved school - Held that mere completion of training does not create a right to appointment (Paras 17-18).
B) Service Law - Irregular Appointments - Parity - Cannot claim parity with illegally appointed persons - The six persons appointed irregularly were terminated and later reinstated by court order - Other candidates cannot seek parity with such illegal appointments - Held that illegality cannot be perpetuated (Paras 13, 18).
C) Service Law - Abolition of Posts - Policy Decision - State's decision to abolish Gardener posts and create Horticulture Extension Workers is a policy matter - The State is entitled to restructure its departments - Held that courts cannot interfere with policy decisions unless arbitrary (Para 19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether candidates who underwent irregular training for the post of Gardener have a right to appointment, and whether the State's decision to abolish the post of Gardener and create Horticulture Extension Workers is valid.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, and dismissed the respondents' applications. The Court held that the respondents have no right to appointment based on irregular training and that the State's policy decision to abolish the posts is valid.
Law Points
- Training does not guarantee employment
- No right to appointment after irregular selection
- Parity cannot be claimed with illegally appointed persons
- Article 311 protection not available for irregular appointments
Case Details
Civil Appeal Nos. 6227-6228 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 1363-1364 of 2019)
The Director of Horticulture, Odisha
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against High Court order upholding Tribunal's direction to consider applicants for appointment as Gardeners.
Remedy Sought
The State sought to set aside the orders of the Tribunal and High Court directing consideration of respondents for appointment as Gardeners.
Filing Reason
The State challenged the direction to appoint respondents who had undergone irregular training, arguing that training does not guarantee employment and that the posts were abolished.
Previous Decisions
The Odisha Administrative Tribunal allowed the respondents' applications and directed the State to consider them for appointment as Gardeners. The High Court dismissed the State's writ petitions.
Issues
Whether the respondents have a right to appointment as Gardeners merely because they underwent training?
Whether the respondents can claim parity with six persons who were irregularly appointed and later reinstated by court order?
Whether the State's decision to abolish the post of Gardener and create Horticulture Extension Workers is valid?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: Training was irregular and did not guarantee employment; respondents cannot claim parity with illegally appointed persons; the posts were abolished as a policy decision.
Respondents: The State's action is arbitrary as similarly situated candidates were appointed; the abolition of posts is a ruse as the new post is the same.
Ratio Decidendi
Training for a post does not confer a right to appointment, especially when the selection process was irregular and the circular explicitly stated no guarantee of employment. Parity cannot be claimed with illegally appointed persons. The State's policy decision to abolish posts and create new ones is a matter of executive policy and not subject to judicial interference unless arbitrary.
Judgment Excerpts
The respondents were subjected to training in pursuance of circular dated July 4, 1998. The training was proposed in the circular dated April 16, 1998. It clearly contemplates that there is no guarantee in the matter of employment after successful completion of training by the trainees.
The appointment to the post of Gardener is required to be made through a proper selection process. The respondents were selected in an irregular manner and trained outside the approved school. They cannot claim a right to appointment.
The State's decision to abolish the post of Gardener and create Horticulture Extension Workers is a policy decision. Courts cannot interfere with such policy decisions unless they are arbitrary.
Procedural History
The respondents filed Original Applications before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, which were allowed on June 27, 2014. The State filed writ petitions before the Orissa High Court, which were dismissed on December 22, 2017. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted leave and allowed the appeals.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 311
- Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962: Rule 15
