DILIP KUMAR TRIPATHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These appeals be special leave are directed against the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal dated 21st September, 1995 in Original Application No. 2252/93 and batch.

(3.) The appellants filed applications before the Tribunal alleging therein that though they were empanelled in the list prepared for appointment to the post of Sepoy in the 6th Battalion on 9th February, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the second List") and even though vacancies existed but only 16 candidates out of the said List were provisionally appointed on 30th March, 1993 and no further appointment was made. It was the case of the appellants that the List in question having been duly made and vacancies in rank of Sepoys being there the decision of the authority to provisionally appoint only 16 persons and not to others is arbitrary and there has been a hostile discrimination between those who have favoured with provisional appointment and the appellants. Be it be stated that even prior to the preparation of the second List an advertisement had been issued sometimes in March 1992 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Sepoy in the 6th Battalion and in accordance with Police Order No. 286 of 1989 the Selection Committee prepared a list of 225 candidates on 31st October, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "the First List"). The said List was exhausted and excepting six candidates belonging to the reserved category the rest were duly appointed. Immediately after the First List got exhausted, the Commandant of the Battalion informed the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Special Armed Police, Orissa, Cuttack by letter dated 76th January, 1993 that action should be taken to prepare a fresh list and fill up the existing vacancies in the cadre of Sepoy. The D.I.G. of Police by his letter dated 15th January, 1993 directed the Commandant to prepare a further list of approximately 200 candidates from amongst the persons who had earlier appeared in the recruitment test, so that, vacancies could be filled up. Pursuant to this direction a fresh list was prepared on 9th February, 1993. The Inspector General of Police directed the Commandant by letter dated 12th February, 1993 to fill up the vacancies from the Second List but not withstanding the said direction the Commandant only issued provisional appointment letters to 16 persons from the Second List and no action was taken to recruit others including the appellants. The appellants, therefore, approached the Tribunal by different applications as already stated. The Tribunal discussed the procedure relating to the appointment of Sepoys and came to hold that even the First List which was prepared was vitiated since the selection committee in question had not been duly constituted. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that there was no necessity to prepare a Second List unless the Sepoys from the 6th Battalion were transferred out and it further held that the Inspector General of Armed Police had intimated that the Second List has been irregularly prepared and has no validity and nobody should be appointed therefrom. Ultimately, Tribunal did not quash the appointments made pursuant to the First List as well as the appointments already made pursuant to the Second List and further directed that taking into account the vacancies which were available on 30th March, 1993 the rest of the candidates from the Second List be appointed. The aforesaid direction of the Tribunal is being impugned in these appeals.