Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 947 (ORI)

RABINDRA NATH DAS v. STATE OF ORISSA

2009-12-10

A.S.NAIDU, B.N.MAHAPATRA

body2009
JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition has prayed to quash the letter dated 31.01.1996 (Annexure-4) & Order Dated 5.6.1997 (Annexure-5), passed by the Opp. Parties-authorities holding the appointments of the Petitioner as Octroi Moharir in the year 1987 & as Junior Tax Assistant in the year 1991 to be illegal & to regularize his service with all other service benefits. 2. The facts, of the case a nutshell are that the Petitioner was a graduate & he was appointed as L.D. Clerk-cum-Typist in the office of the Chairman, Notified Area Council, Jaleswar on temporary basis vide Order No. 2230 dated 27.6.1981. Due to abolition of the Octroi he was retrenched from service with effect from 21.8.1981. Subsequently, on reimposition of Octroi the Petitioner along with others filed O.J.C. No. 2856 of 1986 before this Court seeking direction to the authorities to reappoint them in the post in consonance, with Rule 424 of the Orissa Municipal Rules, 1953 (for short 'the Rules. 1953'). After disposal of the writ Petition, by Order No. 574 dated 3.4.1987 (Annexure-1), the Petitioner was reappointed as Octroi Moharir. The Petitioner, while working in the said post, was appointed in the post of Junior Assistant in Octroi establishment on temporary basis vide Order Dated 28.11.1991 (Annexure-2) of the Chairman, Notified Area. Council, Jaleswar. Thereafter, the Petitioner was transferred from Jaleswar N.A.C. to Balasore Municipality vide order No. 25084 dated 02.08.1994 (Annexure-3) as Junior Assistant. While the matter stood thus, by Order Dated 31.1.1996 (Annexure-4), the Under Secretary to the Government intimated the Executive Officer, Jaleswar N.A.C., Jaleswar that the Petitioner was appointed as junior Assistant in the year 1981 against non-sanctioned post & he continued to work only-for a period of one month & fifteen days. The Petitioner was again appointed as Tax Collector in the year 1987 in contravention of the provisions of the OLFS Rules. The subsequent promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant in the year 1991 was also not in consonance with the statutory provisions & therefore the appointment was illegal & inoperative. The Petitioner's appointment on promotion from the post of Tax Collector to the post of Junior Assistant in the year 1991 by the Municipal Authorities was not in accordance with the rules & the same is regarded as ad hoc promotion to the said post. The Petitioner's appointment on promotion from the post of Tax Collector to the post of Junior Assistant in the year 1991 by the Municipal Authorities was not in accordance with the rules & the same is regarded as ad hoc promotion to the said post. The period from 1981 to 1987 cannot be treated as continuous service. Thereafter, by Order Dated 5.6.1997 (Annexure-5) the Petitioner was brought back to Jaleswar Notified Area Council on the ground that he was irregularly promoted by Jaleswear Notified Area Council from the post of Tax collector to the post of Junior Assistant & was irregularly transferred to Balasore Municipality. Hence this Writ Petition. 3. Mr. Nandy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner vehemently argued that the appointment the Petitioner in the year 1981 was made through a Selection Committee constituted u/s 73 read with Section 75 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act') & Rule 7 of the Orissa Local Funds Service. Rules, 1975 (for short, 'the OLFS Rules'). Under the said provisions, the Chairman was the competent authority for such appointment &, accordingly, on 27.06.1981 the Petitioner was appointed by order of the Chairman of Jaleswar NAC under Annexure-1. However, due to abolition of imposition of Octroi, the Petitioner was retrenched from service with effect from 21.08.1981 with the assurance by Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore, who was in charge of Jaleswar NAC that, his case would be duly considered for reappointment on reimposition of Octroi tax. After reimposition of Octroi tax by Jaleswar NAC, as the Petitioner along with the other retrenched employees were called upon to get their names sponsored through Employment Exchange for consideration of their appointment, they filed a Writ Petition bearing OJC No. 2856/86 before this Court apprehending non -consideration of their cases for reappointment. This Court after hearing the State Government & the NAC Jaleswar, by Judgment dated 11.12,1986 directed the NAC Jaleswar to consider the case of the Petitioner for reemployment in accordance with Rule 424 of the Rules, 1953. Pursuant to the order of this Court, Petitioner's case was considered & he was reappointed as Octroi Moharir by Order Dated 08.09.2007 as no post of Junior Assistant was lying vacant. Subsequently, the Petitioner was. reappointed to the post of Junior Assistant on 28.11.1991. Pursuant to the order of this Court, Petitioner's case was considered & he was reappointed as Octroi Moharir by Order Dated 08.09.2007 as no post of Junior Assistant was lying vacant. Subsequently, the Petitioner was. reappointed to the post of Junior Assistant on 28.11.1991. The appointment of the Petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant on 28.11.1991 cannot be treated as ad hoc appointment as the Petitioner was holding that post on the date he was retrenched, i.e., 21.08.1981. Moreover, since the Petitioner has been reappointed in service pursuant to the direction of this Court order passed in OJC 2856/86 wherein Rule 424 of the Rules 1953 was relied upon, the provisions of amended OLFS Rules have no application. Consequently, the order passed under Annexures-4 & 5 are not sustainable in law. 4. Per contra, Learned Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties contended that the Petitioner was appointed as L.D.C.-cum- Typist on 07.07.1981 on temporary basis by the Jaleswar NAC against a non-sanctioned post. The service of the Petitioner was terminated on 21.08.1981 due to abolition of the Octroi establishment. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Petitioner was reappointed by Jaleswar NAC as Octroi Moharir. One post of Junior Assistant was sanctioned by the Government vide Government Order No. 45365 dated 25.10.1991. The NAC gave appointment to the Petitioner against the non sanctioned post of Junior Assistant on 28.11.1991.The OLFS Amendment Rules came into force with effect from 15.09.1982. As per the provisions of OLFS Amendment Rules, any appointment to the post belonging to the LFS Cadre must be provided by the Government in Housing & Urban Development Department. The OLFS. Amendment Rules was in force at the time of appointment of the Petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant. The post of Junior Assistant/LDC-cum-Typist is a LFS Cadre post. Prior to 15.09.1982, the NAC was competent to fill up any post in both the cadres under Sections 73 & 75 of the Act & under Rule 7 of the OLFS Rules. The amended provision of OLFS Rules stipulates the constitution of a Selection Board to select the candidate in the LFS Cadre. Despite such stipulation, the NAC reappointed the Petitioner on 28.11.1991 in the post of Junior Assistant without following the provisions of LFS Rules. The NAC had also no power to promote the Petitioner from the post of Octroi Moharir to Junior Assistant. Despite such stipulation, the NAC reappointed the Petitioner on 28.11.1991 in the post of Junior Assistant without following the provisions of LFS Rules. The NAC had also no power to promote the Petitioner from the post of Octroi Moharir to Junior Assistant. The promotion has to be made in accordance with law keeping in view the seniority of incumbents maintained through out the State. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the Petitioner's promotion/reappointment was void in law & inoperative. As the Petitioner was engaged on temporary basis for a period of 45 days in the year 1991 against non-sanctioned post & thereafter was retrenched from service, nothing can clothe him with the right to claim higher post bypassing the statutory provisions Nowhere, the Government has accepted the reappointment of the Petitioner as Junior Assistant. The Petitioner has been transferred from Jaleswar NAC to Balaaore Municipality under exigency of Government service pending regularization of his service in accordance with law. In any event, since the Petitioner has been promoted contrary to the Rules, he cannot get the benefit of regularization in service. 5. On the rival contentions raised at the Bar, the question that needs determination by this Court is as to whether after amendment of the OLFS Rules which came into force with effect from 15.09.1982, the Chairman, Jaleswar NAC was competent to fill up the post in the cadre of Junior Assistant under the amended OLFS Rules. 6. Undisputedly, the Petitioner was appointed in the post of L.D. Clerk-cum-Typist in the office of the Chairman, NAC, Jaleswar, vide order No. 2232 dated 27.6.1981.The said appointment was made against a non-sanctioned post. The said appointment order reveals that the appointment was purely temporary & liable to be terminated at any time without notice & without assigning any reason there for.On abolition of Octroi, he was retrenched from the said post after working for 44 days. By Order Dated 03.04.1987 (Annexure-1), the Chairman, Jaleswar NAC, appointed the Petitioner as Octroi Moharir in the office of the Chairman, NAC, Jaleswar. Thereafter, the Petitioner was given appointment in the post of Junior Assistant Cadre in the Octroi establishment, Jaleswar vide Order Dated 28.11.1991 (Annexure-2). The said order reveals that the Petitioner's selection to the post of Junior Assistant was made as per the Order Dated 11.12.1986 of this Court passed in O.J.C. No. 2856 of 1986. Thereafter, the Petitioner was given appointment in the post of Junior Assistant Cadre in the Octroi establishment, Jaleswar vide Order Dated 28.11.1991 (Annexure-2). The said order reveals that the Petitioner's selection to the post of Junior Assistant was made as per the Order Dated 11.12.1986 of this Court passed in O.J.C. No. 2856 of 1986. This Court in the Order Dated 11.12.1986 held that the Petitioners appointment should be considered in terms of Rule 424 of the Orissa Municipal Rules. For better appreciation, Rule 424 is reproduced herein below: 424. When candidates are required for employment in any post in a unit preference shall be given to persons discharged or reverted from such posts in the unit under Rule 420 so long as such persons desirous of such appointments as available, appointments being made in the inverse of the order in which they were discharged or reverted from such unit: Provided that in the case of person who did not on the date of his discharge or reversion hold the post substantively he possesses the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post or has, before discharge or reversion been exempted by competent authority from the possession of such qualifications: Provided further that also if the appointing authority considers it undesirable that any specified persons should be appointed under this rule such authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing & communicated to the person concerned, refuse to appoint him & an appeal lie from such refusal as if it were an order of dismissal. As per the said Rule, when candidates are required for employment in any post in a unit, preference shall be given to the persons discharged or reverted from such posts in the unit under Rule 420 of the Rules 1953 so long, as such persons desirous of such appointments are available. Under this Rule, power is also vested with the appointing authority to refuse to appoint, any such person after recording the reasons for doing so. In that event, appeal shall lie from such refusal. However, under Rule 6 of the amended OLFS Rules, which came into force with effect from 15.09.1982, the post in the cadre of Junior Assistant shall be filled up by direct recruitment or promotion in equal proportion. In that event, appeal shall lie from such refusal. However, under Rule 6 of the amended OLFS Rules, which came into force with effect from 15.09.1982, the post in the cadre of Junior Assistant shall be filled up by direct recruitment or promotion in equal proportion. As per Rule 7 of the amended OLFS Rules, selection for appointment to the posts in the service whether by direct recruitment or by promotion, shall be made by Selection Board consisting of Chairman & Director, Municipal Administration, Deputy Secretary or Under Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department in charge of Local Fund Service, the Chairman of any Urban Local Body nominated by the Government, Senior-most Executive Officer of the Urban Local Bodies (in the Orissa Administrative Service Class-I, Senior Branch). Admittedly, in the present case the Petitioner has not been selected for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant in L.F.S. cadre by the Selection Board as provided under Rule 7 of OLFS Rules. The selection of the Petitioner is also made in violation of Rule 6 of the OLFS Rules. This Court in O.J.C. No. 2856 of 1986 dated 11.12.1986 directed Opp. Party No. 2, Notified Area Council, Jaleswar, represented through its Executive Officer to consider the case of the Petitioners in accordance with the provisions of Rule 424 of the Orissa Municipal Rules. This Court has not issued any direction to make appointment of the Petitioner without adhering to the statutory provisions contained in Rules 6 & 7 of the OLFS Rules, which were in force at the time of appointment. The only direction given by this Court in O.J.C. No. 2856 of 1986 is that while any appointment is made to a post similar to the post from which the Petitioner was retrenched, preference should be given to the Petitioner in terms of Rule 424 of the Rules 1953. In the case at hand, the Petitioner was retrenched from a non-sanctioned post of Junior Assistant & was given posting/promotion to a sanctioned post of Junior Assistant by the Chairman, Jaleswar NAC who was not competent to give such an appointment during the relevant time. The appointment made by the Chairman, Jaleswar NAC is contrary to the provisions of Rules 6 & 7 of the OLFS Rules. 7. The appointment made by the Chairman, Jaleswar NAC is contrary to the provisions of Rules 6 & 7 of the OLFS Rules. 7. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Life Insurance Corporation, Industrial Finance Corporation Employees Associations Vs. Bhagat Ram, Association of Clause II. Officers, Shyam Lal, Industrial Finance Corporation, ; held that the statutory authorities cannot deviate from the statutory provisions & any deviation, if so made, is required to be enforced by legal sanction or declaration by the Courts invalidating such actions in violation of the statutory Rules & Regulations. The Apex Court in Hukam Chand Shyam Lal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others held as follows; It is well settled that where a power is. required to be exercised by ascertain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, & all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden, It is all the more necessary to observe this rule where power is or a drastic nature & its exercise in a mode other than the one provided, will be violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice. The Hoh'ble Supreme Court in Sangeeta Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others held that a statute is an edict of the Legislature. The language employed in a statue is the determinative factor of legislative intent. In Hira Cement Workers Union v. State of Orissa and Ors. 92 (2001) CLT 134, this Court held that where a power has been given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or Mot at all, & other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. In Krushna Chandra Sahoo Vs. Bank of India and Others this Court held as follows: When the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same & cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. It has been hither to uncontroverted legal position that where a statue requires to del a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in trial way of not at all. Other methods or mode of performance are Impliedly & necessarily forbidden. It has been hither to uncontroverted legal position that where a statue requires to del a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in trial way of not at all. Other methods or mode of performance are Impliedly & necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim "(Expressio unius est exclusion alterius", meaning there by that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular, then it has to be done In that manner & in no other manner & following other course is not permissible. Thus, when the statute provides for a particular procedure to be followed to do a certain thing, the same should be done in that manner or not at all & Other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. 8. Mr. Nandy Vehemently argued that the Petitioner was retrenched from his earlier service with the assurance given by the Addl. District; Magistrate, who was in-charge of Jaleswar NAC that the Petitioner's case Would be duly considered for reappointment on reimposition of Octroi tax. In view of such promise, Annexures-4 & 5 holding reappointment of Petitioner to be illegal are not tenable. We are unable to accept such contention of Mr. Nandy. The promise/assurance given by the Addl. District Magistrate cannot act as estoppel against the statute. Law is well settled that there can be no estoppel against statute. The Apex court in Dr. Ashok Kumar Maheshwari Vs. State of U.P. and Another, -held that the rule of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked for the enforcement of a promise or a declaration, which is contrary to law or outside the authority or power of the government or the person making that promise. The Apex court in Bangalore Development Authority and Others Vs. R. Hanumaiah and Others, held as follows: The rule of promissory estoppel cannot be availed to permit or condone a breach of law. It cannot be invoked to compel the Government, to do an act prohibited' by law. It would be going against the statute. The Allahabad High Court in Bhaskar Tiwari v. Vice-Chancellor U.P. Technical University 2005 AIHC 1043, held as follows: It is also a settled proposition of law that estoppel cannot be raised to defeat the provisions of a statute & nor do the Courts issue any direction contrary to law. It would be going against the statute. The Allahabad High Court in Bhaskar Tiwari v. Vice-Chancellor U.P. Technical University 2005 AIHC 1043, held as follows: It is also a settled proposition of law that estoppel cannot be raised to defeat the provisions of a statute & nor do the Courts issue any direction contrary to law. Thus if the ordinances/Government Order prohibited, the Petitioner from securing admission in the B.Tech. course if he had obtained less than 50% marks in aggregate in Physics, Chemistry & Mathematics, the plea of estoppel cannot be raised by the Petitioner/Appellant & nor can this Court issue a direction to treat his admission as a valid admission. 9. In the above fact situation & the settled position of law, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned letter/order under Annexutes-4 & 5 warranting interference by this Court. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. A.S. Naidu, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed