Case: THE STATE OF ODISHA Vs. DHIRENDRA SUNDAR DAS

Service Group ‘B? posts.7.17. To the contrary, some of them have participated in the proceedings of the D.P.C. convened on 30.04.2013 for recruitment to the newly created Orissa Revenue Service Group ‘B? cadre.After being considered, 6 of the contesting Respondents were selected, while 1 was kept on the Waiting List.The State appointed the said Respondents to the Orissa Revenue Service Group ‘B? posts. However, only two out of the five contesting Respondents who were appointed, joined the posts.7.18. Subsequently, during the pendency of the W.P.s, another D.P.C. was convened to consider the promotion of employees working in the Orissa Revenue Services Group ‘B? posts to Orissa Administrative Service Group A (Junior Branch) posts.1 contesting Respondent was promoted to the OAS Group A (Junior Branch) cadre.7.19. The contesting Respondents cannot claim any lien over the abolished OAS Class – II posts, which were governed by the old OAS Class II Rules, 1978 and OAS Class II Regulations, 1978.7.20. In this context, reliance may be placed on two decisions of this Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Chanan Ram (1998) 4 SCC 202. and Union of India & Ors. v. Krishna Kumar & Ors. 2019 (1) SCALE 691. .In Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Chanan Ram (1998) 4 SCC 202. this Court rejected a claim for filing up vacancies in posts which no longer existed, after an amendment of the extant Rules. The relevant excerpt of the decision is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:?14. …Once it is held that the old vacancies were in posts which no longer existed after April 1995, there remained no occasion to consider whether these old vacancies could be filled in by applying earlier rules of recruitment to the very same posts…There were no such posts after April 1995 in the cadres of the Rajasthan Agricultural Marketing Service as seen earlier…15. …On the contrary a three¬Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana [1993 Supp (2) SCC 600 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 846 : (1993) 24 ATC 788] would squarely get attracted on the facts of the present case. A.M. Ahmadi J., speaking for the three¬Judge Bench in para 7 of the Report relying on an earlier judgment of this Court in case of State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488] laid down that when the special process of recruitment had not been finalised and culminated into select list the candidate did not have any right to appointment. In this connection it was observed that the recruitment process could be stopped by the Government at any time before a candidate has been appointed. A candidate has no vested right to get the process completed and at the most the Government could be required to justify its action on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution.?(emphasis supplied)In Union of India & Ors. v. Krishna Kumar & Ors. 2019 (1) SCALE 691. this Court was dealing with a similar situation of cadre restructuring.The relevant extract of the decision is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:?14. In view of this statement of the law, it is evident that once the structure of Assam Rifles underwent a change following the creation of the intermediate post of Warrant Officer, persons holding the post of Havildar would be considered for promotion to the post of Warrant Officer. The intermediate post of Warrant Officer was created as a result of the restructuring exercise. The High Court was, in our view, in error in postulating that vacancies which arose prior to the amendment of the Recruitment Rules would necessarily be governed by the Rules which existed at the time of the occurrence of the vacancies. As the decided cases noted earlier indicate, there is no such rule of absolute or universal application. The entire basis of the decision of the High Court was that those who were recruited prior to the restructuring exercise and were holding the post of Havildars had acquired a vested right of promotion to the post of Naib Subedar. This does not reflect the correct position in law. The right is to be considered for promotion in accordance with the Rules as they exist when the exercise is carried out for promotion.?(emphasis supplied)7.21. The submission of the contesting Respondents that their case be considered at par with the candidates appointed by way of selection and promotion as against the vacancies for the years 2001 to 2005 is not tenable.The appointments of persons as against the vacancies for the years 2001 to 2005 were made vide two Notifications dated December 7, 2010, which were issued prior to the repeal of the old OAS Class II Rules, 1978 and the OAS Class II Regulations, 1978.7.22. Finally, the High Court had relied upon the decision in Mukti Ranjan Acharya & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors. 2012 (II) OLR 61. [W.P. (C) No. 19827/2009; Decided on 16.04.2012] to hold that promotions could be given under the repealed OAS Class II Rules, 1978 and the OAS Class II Regulations, 1978. The S.L.P. against this judgment had been simply dismissed. The Counsel for the contesting Respondents prayed for dismissal of the present Civil Appeals by submitting that the said decision had been affirmed by this Court vide Order dated 28.09.2012.It is a well¬settled principle of law emerging from a catena of decisions of this Court, including Supreme Court Employees? Welfare Association v. Union of India & Anr. (1989) 1 SCC 187 (paras 22 and 23) and State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770 (paras 112 and 113), that the dismissal of a S.L.P. in limine simply implies that the case before this Court was not considered worthy of examination for a reason, which may be other than the merits of the case. Such in limine dismissal at the threshold without giving any detailed reasons, does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]7.1. The contesting Respondents cannot claim an accrued or vested right for selection or promotion to OAS Class – II posts in the year 2008, merely on the basis of their names being forwarded by the respective Departmental Authorities.7.After considering the list prepared under Regulation 7 along with other documents and records received from the State Government, the Orissa Public Service Commission was required to recommend a list of candidates suitable for selection or promotion, as the case may be, under Regulation 9.7.10. The list of candidates recommended by the Orissa Public Service Commission under Regulation 9 was required to be placed before the State Government. The said list, after any approval with modification, was to form the final list from which appointments were to be made to OAS Class – II posts by way of selection or promotion in accordance with Regulation 10.Thus, the recruitment process by way of selection or promotion, as the case may be, initiated in accordance with Regulation 6 would culminate on the making of a final list as per Regulation 10. Appointments by way of promotion or selection could be made only from amongst the candidates whose names featured in the final list prepared by the Commission, and placed before the State Government.7.In the present case, the names of 559 candidates, including the contesting Respondents, were merely recommended by their respective Departmental Authorities under Regulation 6. The recruitment process did not proceed any further in accordance with Regulations 7, 8, 9 and 10. No final list of selected candidates was placed by the Orissa Public Service Commission before the State Government for the purposes of appointment as against the vacancies of 2008.As such, the contesting Respondents who had merely been recommended by their respective Departmental Authorities could not be considered to be ‘eligible? for appointment by way of promotion or selection under the erstwhile OAS Class II Regulations, 1978, since the steps set out in the regulations mentioned below had not been completed prior to the repeal of the old OAS Class II Rules, 1978 and the OAS Class7 – preparation of a list of suitable candidates by the Selection8 – consultation with the Orissa Public ServiceRegulation 9 – recommendation of the Orissa Public Service Commission;10 – preparation and placement of final list before the State Government forthe contesting Respondents had not acquired an accrued or vested right of selection or promotion to OAS Class – II posts in accordance with the OAS Class II Rules, 1978 and the OAS Class II Regulations, 1978, since their names had never been considered for selection or promotion beyond the stage contemplated under Regulation 6.7.In the present case the contesting Respondents had merely been recommended by the respective Departmental Authorities under Regulation 6. The recruitment process had not proceeded any further thereafter. There was no time¬frame prescribed for completion of the recruitment process under the erstwhile OAS Class – II Rules, 1978 or the OAS Class – II Regulations, 1978.7.15. In the meanwhile, the State restructured the Orissa Administrative Service cadre, and constituted the Orissa Revenue Service vide Resolutions dated 28.02.2009 and 25.05.2009.As a part of the re¬structuring exercise, the erstwhile OAS Class – II posts were abolished, and a corresponding new cadre of Group ‘B? posts in the newly constituted Orissa Revenue Service was created.7.16. The contesting Respondents have not challenged either the abolition of OAS Class – II posts, or the creation of the corresponding Orissa Revenue Service Group ‘B? posts.7.17. To the contrary, some of them have participated in the proceedings of the D.P.C. convened on 30.04.2013 for recruitment to the newly created Orissa Revenue Service Group ‘B? cadre.After being considered, 6 of the contesting Respondents were selected, while 1 was kept on the Waiting List.The State appointed the said Respondents to the Orissa Revenue Service Group ‘B? posts. However, only two out of the five contesting Respondents who were appointed, joined the posts.7.18. Subsequently, during the pendency of the W.P.s, another D.P.C. was convened to consider the promotion of employees working in the Orissa Revenue Services Group ‘B? posts to Orissa Administrative Service Group A (Junior Branch) posts.1 contesting Respondent was promoted to the OAS Group A (Junior Branch) cadre.7.19. The contesting Respondents cannot claim any lien over the abolished OAS Class – II posts, which were governed by the old OAS Class II Rules, 1978 and OAS Class II Regulations, 1978.7.The submission of the contesting Respondents that their case be considered at par with the candidates appointed by way of selection and promotion as against the vacancies for the years 2001 to 2005 is not tenable.The appointments of persons as against the vacancies for the years 2001 to 2005 were made vide two Notifications dated December 7, 2010, which were issued prior to the repeal of the old OAS Class II Rules, 1978 and the OAS Class II Regulations, 1978.7.22. Finally, the High Court had relied upon the decision in Mukti Ranjan Acharya & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors. 2012 (II) OLR 61. [W.P. (C) No. 19827/2009; Decided on 16.04.2012] to hold that promotions could be given under the repealed OAS Class II Rules, 1978 and the OAS Class II Regulations, 1978. The S.L.P. against this judgment had been simply dismissed. TheCounsel for the contesting Respondents prayed for dismissal of the present Civil Appeals by submitting that the said decision had been affirmed by this Court vide Order datedis a well¬settled principle of law emerging from a catena of decisions of this Court, including Supreme Court Employees? Welfare Association v. Union of India & Anr. (1989) 1 SCC 187 (paras 22 and 23) and State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770 (paras 112 and 113), that the dismissal of a S.L.P. in limine simply implies that the case before this Court was not considered worthy of examination for a reason, which may be other than the merits of the case. Such in limine dismissal at the threshold without giving any detailed reasons, does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent under Article 141 of the