ANISOOR RAHEMAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners being aggrieved by the common order dated 27.1.2011 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. Nos.2109 (C) of 2008, 2616 (C) of 1996 and 3500 (C) of 1996 under Annexure -10 and the order dated 22.9.2011 passed in M.P. No.488 (C) of 2008 arising out of O.A. No.2109 (C) of 2011 under Annexure -12, have approached this Court for quashing the said orders of the learned Tribunal as at Annexures -10 and 12. They have also prayed for a direction to the opposite parties, more particularly, opposite party no.2 to appoint the petitioners as constables against the vacant posts in the district of Khurda and also to quash the letter dated 25.9.2008 issued by the Government of Orissa in Home Department under Annexure -8.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that pursuant to the advertisement published in the daily "The Sambad" dated 9.9.1995 under Annexure -1, applications were invited for recruitment of constables to the Orissa Armed Reserve Police. The petitioners, who had registered their names in the employment exchanges and having the requisite qualifications, applied for the post of Constables. The petitioners appeared at the recruitment test, which was held as per the guidelines given in the Police Order No.295 of 1994. The selection process was started on 9.10.1995 and completed on 14.10.1995. In the said selection test, 25 male persons belonging to general category, 8 SEBC (Men), 9 Women candidates belonging to general category, 3 women candidates belonging to SC, one SEBC (Women), 20 male persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe, 8 male belonging to Scheduled Caste category and 5 general male Home Guards and one SC woman Home guard were selected and thus 80 candidates were appointed as constables against the advertised vacancy of 66. The present petitioners though had appeared at the selection test, could not be appointed. In the year 1996 in connection with General Election to Lok Sabha pursuant to the direction of the Chief Election Commission, the Government in Home Department on 18.4.1996 wanted to utilize the candidates who were in the waiting list prepared by the selection committee for recruitment of police constables as temporary constables. The Superintendent of Police, Khurda moved the higher authorities in the matter. Since, no waiting list had been prepared by the Selection Committee, which conducted the test for recruitment of constables to the Orissa Armed Reserve Police, the Orissa Police Headquarters issued instructions that though there was no waiting list of selected candidates, the candidates, who were qualified in all the tests, but could not be appointed due to limited vacancy, can be appointed as temporary constables in connection with Lok Sabha Election during 1996. Copies of such letters dated 16.4.1996, 17.4.1996 and 18.4.1996 have been annexed as Annexures -2 series. Pursuant to the letters under Annexure -2 series, appointment orders were issued in favour of the petitioners on 19.4.1996 under Annexure -3 series. It is the further case of the petitioners that as on 31.8.1996 there were 135 vacancies in the cadre of constables, but on account of retirement and due to other reasons, 150 posts were available to be filled up. The petitioners along with 287 persons were appointed as temporary constables, but after the due period was over, neither any extension was given nor their services were regularized for which they approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal challenging the inaction of the opposite parties in not giving them appointment as reserve police constables. The learned Tribunal after hearing the matter disposed of the said O.A. Nos.2616 (C) of 1996 and 3500 (C) of 1996. Since the same did not yield any result, the petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ application bearing OJC No.6736 of 1996 and the said writ application was disposed of on 25.2.2008 giving a direction to the opposite parties, especially to opposite party no.1 to consider the case of the petitioners, who were selected and appointed temporarily as constables in Civil police and whose services were terminated and to take a decision as expeditiously as possible. Pursuant to such direction, the petitioners made a representation to opposite party no.1 under Annexure -5 to consider their case for appointment as constables and to give them a personal hearing, which was forwarded by Government in Home Department to the D.G. and I.G. of Police under Annexure -6. It is the further case of the petitioners that during the pendency of their representation, a fresh advertisement was issued for filling up 1310 posts of constables out of which 163 were earmarked for Khurda district. Such advertisement was published in the daily "Dharitri' on 4.8.2008 as at Annexure -7. According to the petitioners, as per Rule 667 of the Orissa Police Manual, constables enlisted for temporary purposes or in temporary vacancies, are to be employed forthwith and Rule 667 (b) of the Police Manual further speaks that suitable temporary constables shall be absorbed in temporary vacancies as they occur and be sent forthwith to police training schools. Thus, according to the petitioners, when on one hand their representation was kept pending despite the specific direction of this Court in OJC No.6736 of 1998, but advertisement was published for filling up 1310 vacancies in the cadre of constables as per Annexure -7 prescribing higher educational qualifications and age limit. The petitioners again approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. Nos.2109 (C) of 2008, O.A. No.2616 (C) of 1996 and 3500 (C) of 1996 challenging the order of rejection of their representation by the Director General of Police. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties, disposed of the same by holding that the petitioners are to undergo the prescribed recruitment test and they would be absorbed only when they re found suitable in all respect. In the event they were selected and absorbed, their seniority shall count as per the Rules for the period of their regular absorption after training and they shall not be entitled for any retrospective benefits. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application, which was registered as M. P. No.488 (C) of 2011, for modification/clarification of the said order and the learned Tribunal by order dated 22.9.2011 held that the selected candidates shall get their seniority as per Rules, but without retrospective benefits. The learned Tribunal further observed that the Rules towards the age and qualification as was in vogue then are applicable to the petitioners, but they are to undergo the next recruitment test and should be found suitable in those tests. Thus, being aggrieved with the orders of the learned Tribunal as at Annexures -10 and 12 and also the letter of the Government as at Annexure -8, the petitioners have approached this Court for the aforementioned reliefs.

(3.) OPPOSITE Parties 1 to 3 have filed their counter affidavit admitting the fact that the petitioners were appointed as temporary constables during the last Lok Sabha Election held in the year 1996, but it is their specific case that the claim of the petitioners for absorbing them against the regular vacancies does not arise and Rule 667 of the Orissa Police Manual is not applicable to the petitioners as they were appointed as temporary constables for few days and not against permanent vacancies. As such, the petitioners have no right for being appointed on regular basis and the writ petition should be dismissed.