STATE OF ORISSA R C ROUT BINAYAK PANDA H C PRUSTY Vs. SUKANTI MOHAPATRA:SUKANTI MOHAPATRA:RABINARAYAN MALL:STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted in S.L.Ps. Nos. 18926/91 and 389/92.

(2.) In exercise of power conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Orissa enacted the Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment to Posts of Lower Division Assistants in the Offices of Heads of Department) Rules, 1975, (for short 'the Rules') which were brought into force with effect from January 1, 1976. Rule 3 thereof provides that the recruitment to the said posts shall be made by means of a competitive examination to be held once in every year. The eligibility criteria is laid down in Rule 8. The minimum educational qualification prescribed under Rule 8(b) for the said post is that the candidate should have passed Intermediate in Arts / Science or Commerce or an equivalent qualification. Rule 13 provides that the relative seniority of each candidate shall be determined with reference to his position in the examination held in a particular year. Rule 14 deals with relaxation and is in the following terms:

(3.) In the backdrop of these provisions the question which arises for consideration is whether the appointments of candidates made dehors these rules could be 'regularised' in exercise of the power of relaxation conferred on the Government by the aforequoted Rule 14 of the Rules, and if yes, whether such irregular appointees whose services have been regularised under Rule 14 could be placed above the regularly appointed incumbents in seniority on the basis of the length of service On a plain reading of Rule 14 it is obvious that the relaxation power, so called, can be exercised in respect of a class or category of persons when the Government are of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do in public interest and for reasons to be recorded in writing. The rule empowers the Government to 'relax any of the provisions of these rules' in public interest. Now if we turn to the Government Order in Civil Appeals Nos. 2708-09 and 1673-74 of 1991 we find that the orders dated January 3, 1985 are in identical terms, the relevant part whereof reads as under: