Supreme Court of India
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. ETC.versusSUKANTI MOHAPATRA AND ORS. ETC.
- Citation
- 1993 INSC 106
- Decided
- 19 March 1993
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- A M AHMADI
Holding
Rule 14 cannot be employed to regularise illegal appointments nor to alter the seniority of regular recruits; regularisation may be upheld on equitable grounds but seniority of regular appointees remains unaffected.
Summary
The Orissa Ministerial Service Rules, 1975 required recruitment of Lower Division Assistants through competitive exams, but many were appointed without complying with the rules and later regularised by government orders invoking Rule 14. The appellants challenged the regularisation and the seniority ranking that placed some irregular appointees above regular recruits. The Supreme Court held that Rule 14 permits relaxation of specific provisions for a class of persons in public interest, but does not empower the government to regularise illegal appointments or overturn the seniority scheme. The Court found that the orders lacked the requisite written public‑interest justification and therefore could not displace the seniority of regularly appointed candidates. While the Court upheld the regularisation on equitable grounds under Article 162, it clarified that regular appointees remain senior to the irregular appointees. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether Rule 14 of the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules can be used to regularise appointments made outside the prescribed recruitment procedure.
- Whether irregular appointees whose services were regularised under Rule 14 can be placed senior to regular appointees on the basis of length of service.
- Whether the government orders invoking Rule 14 satisfied the statutory requirement of public interest and written reasons.
- Whether the Administrative Tribunal correctly interpreted Rule 14 and the seniority provisions.
- Whether the Tribunal applied the correct limitation provision of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Legislation cited
- Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985s. 21(1)(a), s. 21(2)(a)
Subjects
service lawrelaxationregularisationseniorityadministrative tribunalpublic interestconstitutional lawArticle 14Article 309Article 162
Judgment
''-·
~- STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. ETC. A
v.
SUKANTI MOHAPATRA AND ORS. ETC.
MARCH 19, 1993
[A.M. AHMADI AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.] B
~
Se!Vice Law :
Orissa Mi11isterial Se!Vice (Method and Recruitment to Posts of Lower
Divisio11 Assista11ts in the Offices of Heads of Department) Rules, 1975: c
Rules 13 & 14--Appointment by Relaxation-Candidates appointed
--,, without following the relevant rules-Regularisation of such irregular appoin-
tees-Effect of-:lnte1"Se seniority-Fixation of-Whether the irregular appoin-
tees subsequently regularised can be placed above the regular appointees on
the basis of total length of se1Vice. D
The Orissa Ministerial Service (Method and Recruitment !t1 Posts
of Lower Division Assistants in the Offices of Heads of Department)
Rules, 1975 (the Rules) came into force with effect from 1.1.1976. Rule 3
thereof provided that recruitment to the said posts should be made by
x E
_means of a competitive examin!ltion to he held once in every year. Rule
8(b) p_rescribed the minimum educational qualification as Intermediate in
Arts/Science/Commerce. Rule 14 provided for relaxation of the provisions
in respect of any class or category of persons in public interest. Rule 13
proviMd for the relative seniority of candidates with reference to the
position in the competitive exa_mination. A proviso came to be added to F
Rule 13 'that those appointed by relaxation under Rule 14 would rank
" below the validly recruited candidates.
A large number of persons came to be recruited without resort to
competitive examination. Many of them did not possess the minimum
G
qualification. Their appointments were made by resorting to relaxation
under Rule 14. Subsequently their services were regularised.
y'
The orders of regularisation and fixing of relative seniority were
challenged before the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal observed
that the po,ver to relax can:not be resorted to regularise irregular appoint- H
' 505
-,../
j
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 2 S.C.R. •
ments. However, in view of the lapse of time, it felt that quashing of .....
'
A
regularisation would result in loss of livelihood to the irregular recruits,
and so it did not strike down the regularisation order. As. regards ,~
seniority, the Tribnnal ordered that the regular appointees would be ,...
senior to the irregular appointees.
B Against the orders of the Tribunal the irregular appointees as also ~
the State Government preferred appeals before this Court.
Disposing of the appeals, this Court,
c HELD : 1.1 . Rule 14 of the Rules empowers the Government to
relax any rule or rules in public interest for any class or category of ~
persons for reasons to be stated in writing. However, it is clear from the '
two orders that the regularisation was made for individuals specified in -<
the orders who had made representations and not for any class or
category of persons. It is true that the persons named in the orders were
D irregular appointees but the orders do not say that all irregular appoin- -
tees will stand regularised under the said orders. [512E-F]
1.2. The first order of January 3, 1985 says that regularisation .is
being permitted on compassionate grounds, which would depend on the li
E fact-situation of each appointee. The subsequent order of February 14, .:>. '
1985, does not even pretend to state that the action is in public interest.
It is totally silent on this point. The essential requirement i.e. the
-
condition precedent for the exercise of power under Rule 14, namely,
public interest, is not shown to have been satisfied. Rule 14 permits
relaxation of "any of the provisions of the rules" but it does not speak of
F regularisation. Ex-facie the two orders do not speak of any particular
rule or rules having been relaxed but provides for regularising the y'
services of specified individuals whose. appointments were outside and
inconsistent with the Rules. The reason for exercise of power in the case
of nine appointees covered under the order of January 3, 1985 is stated
G to be "compassionate grounds" but in the case of those covered under
the second order or February 14, 1985, no ground at all is given. Such
orders, therefore, cannot have the protection of Rule 14 nor can the \.,'
appointments be regularised as having been done under the Rules so as
to dislodge the seniority of regularly appointed persons.
H [512G-H;.513A-D]
\_
STATE OF ORISSA v. SUKANTI MOHAPATRA 507
_f,_ 1.3. Admittedly the employees whose services are sought to be A
' regularised were appointed dehors the Rules. Rule 14 merely pennlts
-< relaxation of any of the provisions of the Rules in public interest but not
' the total shelving of the Rules. The orders do not say which rule or rules
the Government considered necessary and expedient in public interest to
relax. What has been done under the impugned orders is to regularise the
i
;... illegal entry into service as if the Rules were not in existence. Besides, the
B
reasons for so doing are not set out nor is it clear how such regularisation
can sub-serve public interest. [515C]
I 1.4. Rule 14 has to be strictly construed and proper foundation must
• _be laid for the exercise of power under that rule. The Rules have a limited c
role of play, namely, to regulate the method of recruitment, and Role 14
~
enables the Government to relax any of the requirements of the Rules
"}-
J pertaining to recruitment. The language of Rule 14 in the context of the
objective of the Rules does not permit total suspension of the Rules and
recruitment dehors the Rules. [515D-E]
D
1.S In the instant case, recruitments had taken place years back in
total disregard of the Rules and now what is sought to be done is to
regularise the illegal entry in exercise of power under Rule 14, which does
not confer. such a blanket power; its scope is limited to relaxing any rule,
~ . e.g., eligibility criteria, or the like, but it cannot be understood to E
empower Government to throw the Rules overboard. If the rule is so
construed it may not stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. The
proviso to Rule 13 can come into play in the matter of fixation of
- seniority between candidates who have successfully cleared the examina-
lion and a candidate who cleared the examination after availing of the F
benefit of relaxation. [515E-F]
""" R.N. Narijµndappa v. T. Thimmiah and Anr., 1972 SLR 94 (AIR 1972
SC 1767), relied on.
2. The relative seniority will be worked out as directed by the G
Tribunal but it will not have the effect of disturbing the seniority of
,,, regular appointees who will rank senior to the irregular appointees. It is
clarified that any benefit derived by the irregular appointees under any
interim orders contrary to the relief moulded by the Tribunal shall be
adjusted and brought in tune with the said relief. [516C-D] H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R .
.A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1347 of A
1993 etc. etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated. 23.9.1991 of the Orissa Ad·
ministrative Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar in 0.A No. 1494 of 1990.
B A.K. Panda, J.R. Das, P.N. Mishra, B.A. Mohanti, Ms. Aruna
Mathur and C.S.S. Rao for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AHMADI, J. Special leave granted in S.L.Ps Nos. 18926/91 and
c 389/92. . ' .
In exercise of power conferred by the proviso to Article' 309 of the
Constitution of India, the Governor of Orissa ~nacted the Orissa .Milli· "
sterial Service (Method of Recruitment of Posts of Lower Division Assis-
D tants 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
E 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 dete.nnined with reference to his position in the
examination held in a particular year. Rule 14 deals with relaxation· and is
in the following terms :
F "When the Government are of opinion that it is necessary
or expedient so to do it may by order, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these
rules in respect of any class or category of persons in
public interest."
G
A proviso came to be added to Rule 13 that those appointed by relaxation
under Rule 14 shall in that year, rank below validly recruited candidates
under Rule 3 or the first part of Rule 11 of the Rules.
In the backdrop of these provisions the question which arises for
H consideration is whether the appointment of candidates made dehors these
STATE OF ORISSA v. SUKANTI MOHAPAlRA [AHMADI, J.) 509
rules could be 'regularised' in exercise of the power of relaxation conferred . A·
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 ofservice ? On a plain reading of
Rule 14 it is obvious that the relaxation power, so called, Can be exercised B
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 pro,jsions of these rules' in pubic interest. Now if we tum
to the Govcrnme.nt Order in Civil Appeals Nos. 2708-09 and 1673-74 of
1991 we find that the orders dated Januari3, 1985 are in identical terms, C
_ the relevant part whereof reads as under :
"•.....•. after careful consideration Government have been
pleased to relax the appointment of the -following nine
irregular L.DAssistants of Directorate of Mining and •
Geology under provisions of Rule-14 of the O.M.S. D
(Method of Recruitment of Junior Assistants in the Office
of Heads of Departments) Rules, 1975 on compassionate
grounds in public interest." · -
-->< The names of the concerned irregular appointees have then been stated E
without prejudice to inter-se seniority. In the other two appeals arising from
Special Leave Petitions Nos. 18926191 and "389192 the text of the order is
somewhat different from the one extracted above. In both these cases the
- order, though differing from the above extracted text, is identical in Ian'
guage, the relevant part whereof reads thus .: F
'I am directed ............ io say that a proposal for regularisa-
. tion of the following irregular recruits appointed as Junior
Assistant in the office of the Chief Engineer, P.H., Orissa
in violation of the pro,isions contained in Orissa Mini-
sterial Service (Method of Recruitment to the posts of G
Lower Division Assistants in the Offices of the Heads of
Department) Rules, 1975, was under active consideration
of Government.
... ... ... .... ... H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 2 S.C.R.
A After careful consideration, Government has been pleased .A
to regularise the irregular appointment of these 18 recruits
under Rule 14 of the Orissa Ministerial Service (Method
of Recruitment to the Posts of Lower Division Assistants
in the Office of the Heads of Department) Rules, 1975.
Tlte inter-se seniority of these irregular recruits vis-a-vis
B with that of regular recruits may be determined in accord-
anec with the provision contained under Rule 13....."
From the texts of the aforesaid orders two things immediately come
to notice, namely, (i) .the orders relate to named individual irregular
c recruits and (ii) they purport to regularise the services of such recruits.
Next the first order of January 3, 1985 says that the relaxation power
conferred by Rule 14 is being invoked "on compassionate grounds in public
interest" whereas the subsequent order of February 14, 1985 does not
assign any reason whatsoever for the exercise of the power. Now und.er
Rule 14 the power to relax the provisions of the Rules can be exercised in
D'
public interest only for ;easons to be recorded in writing. In the first order
the only reason surfacing from the text of the order is compassion whereas
the second order is entirely silent on the point. Besides, under Rule 14
the power eiitends to relaxation of any of the provisions of the Rules but
the orders do not expressly state which rule or rules" is or are intended to
E be relaxed and the matter is left to inference. Indeed it is quite obvious
from the text ohhe orders which we have extmcted hereinabove that what
was intended was not to relax any particular rule or rules but to regularise
the appointments. of certain specified individuals whose appointments were
not in accordance with the Rules. The Orirr;a Administrative Tribunal in
F Original Applications Nos. 208 and 209 of 1987 which has given rise to civil
Appeals Nos./2708-09 and 1673-74 of 1991 observes :
"The group of nine Assistants had nothing in common
between them except that they were appointed sometime
or other in various different types of posts .... By themselves
G they do not form a class or category except for the fact
that they are irregular recruits. We have not been able to
understand how compassionate ground and public inter-
est go together. There is no doubt that these are cases
which have been regularised on compassionate ground
H but we have not been able to see any public interest in the
STATE OF ORISSA v. SUKANTI MOHAPA1RA [AHMADI, J.] 511
_)-,
said regularisation. In fact, Annexure X amounts to a A
regularisation of irregular recruits. but there is no such
provision of regularisation of irregular recruits in the said
rules or any other rule pointed out to us."
The Tribunal then proceeds to point out that a large number of them do
not have the minimum prescribed qualification of Intermediate Arts, B
. Science or Commerce.
"Once we accept that Rule 14 gives power to Government
to regularise irregular recruits by executive order then the
entire rule framed for recruitment by a prescribed proce-
dure can be set at naught."
c
The Tribunal thus saw a difference between regularisation and relaxation
and came to the conclusion that Rule 14 did not permit regularisation of
irregular recruits. It also felt that sympathy and compassion cannot out-
weigh public policy and concern for public interest. In this view of the
matter it felt that the gradation list showing the regularised recruits senior
to regularly appointed persons was not legally sustainable. It, however,
dismissed the Applications as time barred, a view which it reviewed and
reversed subsequently in M.P. Nos.187-188 of 1990, which order too is
assailed before us.
E
In the subsequent two appeals arising out of S.L.Ps. Nos. 18926/91
and 389/92, the Tribunal held :
- ult seems Government used the expression 'regularisation'
....... as synonymous with 'relaxation'. In our opin~ this
F
is entirely wrong. In the guise of 'relaxation', Government
has no power to 'regularise' the illegal appointments."
But realising that on the quashing of regularisation all the irregular
recruits would lose their livelihood, the Court further observed :
G
"On equitable ground we feel that it shall not be proper
for the end of justice to countenance such a situation
where persons serving for 12 years under the Government
would lose their jobs."
After pointing out that most of such recruits would have crossed the upper
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R.
A age limit for entry into Government service and many of them may have
moved vertical! y by securing promotions, the Tribunal moulded the relief
as under:
"At this juncture on equitable ground while we do not
propose to quash the regularisation ...... we shall not at
B the same time allow the illegality and injustice to per-
petuate further by denying the relief sought for in this
application."
The Tribunal declared the petitioner (regular recruit) to be senior to the
irregular recruits without striking ~own the regularisation order.
c
The appeals have been preferred by those whose entry in service was
irregular being dehors the Rules on the grounds that the Tribunal was " .4'
wrong in the view it took regarding the Government's power under Rule
14 and the exercise of that power. The State of Orissa has also approached
D this Court to have its orders of January 3, 1985 and February 14, 1985
upheld. As all these appeals raise common questions of law, we have
deemed it appropriate to dispose them of by this common judgment.
From what we have discussed so far it does appear that after the
Rules were brought into force with effect from January 1, 1976, the
I'
J:, recruitment was made in total disregard of the Rules in 1976 and there(ore
even of those who did not possess the minimum educational qualification
prescribed for the job under the Rules. Such recruits have been described
as 'irregular'. Rule 14 empowers the Government (o relax any rule or rules
in public interest for any class or category of persons for reasons to be
F stated in writing. However, it is clear from the two orders reproduced
hereinabove that the regularisation was made for individuals specified in
the orders who had made representations and not for any class or category
of persons. True it is that the persons named in the orders were irregular
appointees but the orders do not say that all irregular appointees will stand
regularised under the said orders. Then, the first order of January 3, 1985
G says that regularisation is being permitted on compassionate grounds which
would depend on the fact-situation of each appointee. Even.if it is assumed
y
that these irregular recruits constituted a class or category of persons, Rule
14 could be invoked in public interest only. If compassionate ground is the
public interest for regularisation .it is difficult to understand how such a
factual aspect can form the basis for public interest. Assuming that their
STATE OF ORISSA v. SUKANTI MOHAPATRA [AHMADI, J.] 513
having served for long years is a valid reason for regularisation, that, A
without anything more, will not meet the requirement of the action being
in public interest. Rule 14 requires that the reasons in support of the action
being in public interest mu~t be stated in writing but no reason other than
'compassionate grounds' appears in the first order. And what are those
compassionate grounds? The order does not provide the answer. The
subsequent order of February 14, 1985, does not even pretend to state that
B
the action is in public interest. It is totally silent on this point. It would,
therefore, seem that the essential requirement i.e. the condition precedent
for the exercise of power under Rule 14, namely, public interest, is not
shown to have been satisfied. Next Rule 14 permits relaxation of "any of
the provisions of the rules" but does not speak of regularisation. Ex-facie c
the two orders do not speak of any particular rule or rules having been
relaxed but provides for regularising the services of specified individuals
whose appointments were outside and inconsistent with the Rules. The
reason for exercise of power in the case of nine appointees covered under
the order of January 3, 1985 is stated to be "cojllpassionate grounds" and D
in the case of those covered under the second order of February 14, 1985,
no ground at all. Such orders, therefore, cannot have the protection of Rule
14 nor can the appointments be regularised as having been made under
the Rules so as to dislodge the seniority of regularly appointed·.persons.
• The Rules were made un.der the proviso to Article 309 for regulating E
the method of recruitment to the posts of Lower Division Assistants in the
offices of the Heads of Departments. The method of recruitment set out
in Rule 3 is through a competitive examination to be held once in every
year. According to Rule 4 this competitive examination has to be con-
ducted by a Board of Examiners after the Chairman of the Board has F
invited applications from those desirious of appearing at the examination
through public advertisement. Rule 8 lays down the eligibility criteria as
regards age, educational qualification, knowledge of Oriya language, etc.
Rule 9 sets out the syllabus of the examination and Rule 10 provides for
allotment of successful candidates to different departments. Rule 11 is G
somewhat important since it lays down the _procedure for filling up vacan-
cies after the list of candidates is exhausted. Where the vacancy has arisen
after the list is exhausted such vacancy may be filled by a successful
candidate of the previous year and failing that by any qualified candidate
on a temporary basis till the result of the next year's examination is
declared. Rule 12 provides the period of probation while Rule 13 lays down H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 2 S.C.R.
A the rule for focation of seniority. It says that the relative seniority of each-
candidate shall be determined with reference to his position in the com-
petitive examination in any particular year. Where, however, a candidate
of the previous year is· selected. under Rule 11 for appointment in the
subsequent year he shall rank just below the successful candidates of the
year in which the appointment was made. To this a proviso has been added
B as under:
"P~ovided that those appointed as iumor assistants, in
relaxation of provision under Rule 14, shall in that year
rank below all candidates who have been validly recruited
c under Rule 3 and under first part of Rule 11 of the said
rules. 11
Rule 14 we have already extracted earlier. Rule 15 provides for reservations
and concessions to SC/ST and other candidates. Rule 16 stipulates that
D these rules shall have over-riding effect notwithstanding anything inconsis-
tent therewith contained in any other recruitment rules, orders, etc. It
becomes clear from these rules that after they came into force they alone
held the field. Secondly, the method of recruitment is only one, namely,
direct recruitment through a competitive examination to be conducted by
the Board of Examiners. The only exception that we find is in Rule 11
E which permits a temporary appointment till the next year's examination
result is declared. Despite the Rules having come into force with effect
from January 1, 1976, appointment were made in disregard of the Rules
from 1976 and onwards. It is this batch of irregularly appointed employees
F
whose services were sought to be regularised under rule 14 by the orders
of January 3, 1985 and February 14, 1985. Counsel for the regular recruits
-
contend that what the Government has done in exercise of power under
Rule 14 is to set at naught the entire body of the Rules as if they never
existed. The power of relaxation, contend counsel, cannot be so used as to
render the Rules non-est. In support of this contention strong reliance was
placed on the following observations in the case of R.N.Nanjundappa v. T.
G 171immiah and A11r., 1972 SLR 94 (AIR 1972 SC 1767) :
"If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if y
it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution,
illegality cannot be regularised. Ratification or regularisa-
H tion is possible of an act which is within the power and
'y
STATE OF ORISSA v. SUKANTI MOHAPATRA [AHMADI, J.] 515
...>-, province of the authority but there has been some non- A
compliance with procedure or manner which does not go
to the root of the appointment. Regularisation cannot be
said to be a mode of recruitment. To accede to such a
proposition would be to introduce a new head of appoint-
ment in defiance of rules or it may have the effect of
B
setting at naught the rules."
In the present case also the appointments of the employees whose services
are sought to be regularised were dehors the Rules. Rule 14 merely permits
relljlffition of any of the provisions of the Rules in public interest but not
the total shelving of the Rules. The orders do not say which rule or rules c
the Government considered necessary and expedient in public interest to
relax. What has been done under the impugned orders is to. regularise the
illegal entry into service as if the Rules were not in existence. Besides the
reasons for so doing are not set out nor is it clear how such regularisation
can sub-serve public interest. Rule 14 has to be strictly constructed and
D
proper foundation must be laid for the exercise of power under that rule.
The Rules have a limited role to play, namely, to regulate the method of
recruitment, and Rule 14 enables the Government to relax any of the
- ,. requirements of the Rules pertaining to recruitment. The language of Rule
14 in the context of the objective of the Rules does not permit total
suspension of the Rules and recruitment dehors the Rules. In the present E
case the recruitments had taken place years back in total disregard of the
Rules and now what is sought to be done is to regularise the illegal entry
in exercise of power under Rule 14. Rule 14, we are afraid, does not confer
such a blanket power; its scope is limited to relaxing any rule, e.g., eligibility
criteria, or the like, but it cannot be understood to empower Government
F
to throw the Rules overboard. If the rule is so constructed it may not stand
~ the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. The proviso to Rule 13 can come
into play in the matter of fixation of seniority between candidates who have
successfully cleared the examination and a ·candidate who cleared the
examination after availing of the benefit of relaxation. We are, therefore,
of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no error in understanding the. G
pu port of Rule 14.
The Tribunal's order in review is assailed on the ground that it had
no justification to reverse its earlier order by which it had held that the
challenge was time-barred. The Tribunal exercised the review jurisdiction H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R.
A as it had failed to notice the correct.provision and had, therefore, applied
the wrong provision in declaring the proceeding time-barred. The Tribunal
rightly points out that since the cause of action had arisen prior to the
establishmenf of the Tribunal, the proceedings stood governed by section
21{2) (a) and not section 21{1) {a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985, which it had wrongly invoked. We, therefore, see no merit in this
B challenge.
Now even though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Rule 14
did not permit regularisation made under the impugned orders of January
3, 1985 and February 14, 1985, it, having regard to the long service put in
C by the employees nan."d in the said two orders and on compassionate
considerations has supported the regularisation under Article 162 of the
Constitution. It has moulded the relief on such consideration. Since that
part of the order has not been assailed and since the appellants cannot be
worse of by appealing, we cannot interfere with that part of the order. It
will, therefore, be worked out as directed by the Tribunal but we may
D clarify that it will not have the effect of disturbing the seniority of regular
appointees who will rank senior to the irregular appointees. We may also
clarify that any benefit derived by the irregular appointees under any
-
interim orders contrary to the relief moulded by the Tribunal shall be
adjusted and brought in tune with the said relief. The benefit of this relief,
E to the extent relevant, will be given to irregular appointees covered under
both the impugned orders .of January 3, 1985 and February 14, 1985.
With the above clarification, we dismiss all these appeals with no
orders as to costs.
G.N. Appeals disposed of.
-
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search