Case: State of Orissa Etc Vs. Arun Kumar Patnaik and Another Etc

This is a group of 4 appeals arising out of a judgment dated June 10, 1974 of the High Court of Orissa. Civil Appeals Nos. 1739 and 1740 are filed by the State of Orissa while Civil Appeals Nos. 1741 and 1742 are filed by one T. C. Krishna Moorthy. Two writ petitions were filed in the Orissa High Court, one by Arun Kumar Patnaik and the other by Niranjan Mishra for quashing certain orders and notifications issued by the Government of Orissa in regard to Krishna Moorthys appointment as an Assistant Engineer and his subsequent promotions to higher posts. Patnaik and Mishra challenged Krishna Moorthys appointment and prayed that in any event they ought to be accorded seniority overan order dated December 11, 1958 Krishna Moorthy and two others were appoint ed as "temporary Assistant Engineers on contract basis for a period of 3 years". The appointments were made by direct recruitment on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission which held a test and a viva voce examination in accordance with the Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941. Krishna Moorthy took charge of the post on January 19, 1959. On September 13, 1960 which was during the currency of the contractual period of 3 years, the Government of Orissa informed him that the question of absorbing him in the regular establishment of the States Engineering Service will be taken up for consideration on his completion of 2 years of service and in case he was absorbed, his absorption would be given retrospective effect from the date of his first appointment as an Assistant Engineer. The Government of Orissa thereafter consulted the Public Service Commission and after obtaining its concurrence, it passed an order dated March 14, 1962 regularising Krishna Moorthys service by absorbing him in the regular cadre of an Assistant Engineer retrospectively from January 19, 1959. That order is Annexure II to the Writ Petitions. On September 21, 1962 Krishna Moorthy was promoted as an Executive Engineer (Annexure III); on November 15, 1968 he was confirmed as an Assistant Engineer with effect from February 27, 1961 (Annexure IV); on May 12, 1969 he was confirmed as an Executive Engineer with effect from December 2, 1967; and on November 23, 1973 he was promoted as a Superintending Engineer (Annexure VII), Patnaik and Mishra challenged the validity of the orders at Annexures II, III, IV and VII to the writ petitions.These are the relevant dates in regard to Krishna Moorthys appointment. In regard to the appointments of Patnaik and Mishra, it would be enough to recapitulate facts relating to Patnaiks appointment, because for the purpose of deciding these appeals there is no distinction between those facts and the facts of Mishras case. On April 14, 1960 Patnaik was appointed "on provisional basis to act as temporary Assistant Engineer" by direct recruitment, which was about a year and 4 months after Krishna Moorthys initial appointment as a temporary Assistant Engineer on contract basis. On November 15, 1968 Patnaik was confirmed as an Assistant Engineer with effect from May 2, 1962. (It may be recalled that by an order of even date Krishna Moorthy was confirmed as an Assistant Engineer with effect from February 27, 1961.) On October 31, 1970 Patnaik was confirmed as an Executive Engineer with effect from December 2, 1967. (It may be recalled that Krishna Moorthy was confirmed as an Executive Engineer with effect from the same date viz., December 2, 1967 though by an earlier order dated May 12,June 19, 1970 Patnaik filed a representation to the State Government claiming seniority over Krishna Moorthy. On April 16, 1973 Patnaik filed a memorial to the Governor of Orissa for restoration of his seniority. On May 29, 1973 Patnaik and Mishra filed writ petitions in the High Court questioning the validity of Krishna Moorthys absorption in the regular cadre by the order of March 14, 1962 as also his subsequent promotions and seniority. By a Judgment dated June 10, 1974 the High Court declared Krishna Moorthys absorption by the notification of March 14, 1962 as invalid and quashed the notifications at Annexures II, III, IV and VII, thereby also rendering his promotions as Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer and his confirmation as an Assistant Engineer illegal. Krishna Moorthys seniority fell with his appointment. The correctness of the High Courts judgment is challenged in these appeals by special leave.In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 241 ofthe Government of India Act, 1935, the Governor of Orissa made rules for the regulation of recruitment to and t he conditions of service, pay, allowances and pension of the Orissa Service of Engineers. These rules are called the Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941. Rule 3 (b) defines a "Member of Service" to mean a servant of the Crown (no w the State Government), appointed in a substantive capacity under the provisions of the Rules to a post in the cadre of the service. The sanctioned strength of this Service consists under Rule 4 of one Chief Engineer, 2 Superintending Engineers, 7 Executive Engineers, 20 Assistant Engineers and 4 Assistant Engineers in leave and training reserve. By rule 5 all first appointments to the service are ordinarily to be made to the rank of an Assistant Engineer. Appointments to the rank of Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer are to be made ordinarily by the Governor after consultation with the Public Service Commission by promotion from the next lower post. Promotion is made by selection on the basis of merit and seniority but seniority of itself can confer no claim to promotion. Rule 6 provides that recruitment to the rank of Assistant Engineers shall be made partly by direct recruitment in accordance with rules 8 to 15 and partly by promotion in accordance with rules 16 to 18. Rule 8 prescribes basic qualifications for appointment to any post in the Orissa Service of Engineers while Rule 9 prescribes further qualifications for appointment by direct recruitment. Rule 10 requires the Public Service Commission to announce the number of vacancies to be filled by direct appointment and to invite applications from candidates eligible for appointment to the service. Under the proviso to rule 10, temporary Assistant Engineers appointed on t he recommendation of the Public Service Commission are not required to compete with other candidates for permanent appointments when such vacancies arise. By the same proviso temporary Assistant Engineers can, without further reference to the Public Service Commission, be appointed to permanent posts according to their seniority and record of service unless the Commission expressly specifies in any particular case that a candidates case may be referred to them before the question of his permanent appointment is taken up. Rule 12 requires the Public Service Commission to interview suitable candidates while rule 13 requires the Commission to prepare a list of selected candidates arranged in order of preference, the number of such candidates being ordinarily 1-1/3 times the number of vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment. The final selection of the candidates is to be made by the Governor under Rule 15(a) from amongst those who have been included in the list submitted by the Commission or in respect of whom a report has been submitted in accordance with rule 14. The candidates selected by the Governor are required by rule 15(b) to submit themselves for examination by a Medical Board.Rule 19(a) provides that persons appointed by direct recruitment shall be on probation for 2 years while those appointed by promotion shall undergo a probation for one year, provided that the Governor may extend the period of probation in any particular case. A t any time during the probationary period, the Governor can dispense with the service of any officer appointed by direct recruitment after a months notice and he can likewise revert the promoted officer to his substantive appointment.

Reasoning:
In view of these facts and considerations, it is impossible to accept the submission made on behalf of Patnaik and Mishra that Krishna Moorthys appointment under the notification of March 14, 1962 is in any sense invalid. Consequently, his subsequent promotions and the seniority accorded to him must also be upheld. The decision in Narayan Chandra Parida v. State of Orissa and Ors., (1) on which reliance is placed to deprive Krishna Moorthy of his seniority has no application, as in that case the petitioner was ranked as a junior to a person who was not at all in Government service when the petitioner was appointed. In the instant case, Krishna Moorthy was appointed as an Assistant Engineer on a temporary basis on January 19, 1959 whereas Patnaik and Mishra were appointed on April 14, 1960 to act as Assistant Engineers on a provisional basis. All along their respective service careers, extending over 13 years, Krishna Moorthy was recognized as senior to the other two. It is unnecessary to deal at length with the States contention that the writ petitions were filed in the High Court after a long delay and that the writ petitioners are guilty of laches. We have no doubt that Patnaik and Mishra brought to the Court a grievance too stale to merit redress. Krishna Moorthys appointment was gazetted on March 14, 1962 and it is incredible that his service-horoscope was not known to his possible competitors. On November 15, 1968 they were all confirmed as Assistant Engineers by a common Gazette notification and that notification showed Krishna Moorthys confirmation as of February 27, 1961 and that of the other two as of May 2, 1962. And yet till May 29, 1973 when the writ petitions were filed, the petitioners did nothing except to file a representation to the Government on June 19, 1970 and a memorial to the Governor on April 16, 1973. The High Court made light of this long and inexplicable delay with a casual remark that the contention was "without an y force". It overlooked that in June, 1974 it was setting aside an appointment dated March 1962 of a person who had in the meanwhile risen to the rank of a Superintending Engineer. Those 12 long years were as if writ in water. We cannot but express our grave concern that an extraordinary jurisdiction should have been exercised in such an abject disregard of consequences and in favour of persons who were unmindful of their so-called rights for many long years.