Of those 74, 58 persons were said to have been so appointed out of the selections made in 1981 and 16 were said to be of SC ST candidates selected in 1983.
About 11 persons, who were appointed in 1985, and who undertook fresh recruitment test and appeared for interview but companyld number be selected, were said to have filed four applications before the Tribunal O.A. Nos.1179/88, 1081/88, 1087/88 and 114 of 1989 seeking for a declaration that their recruitments were valid that the 1988 rules will have numberapplication to them and they should number be retrenched.
Thereupon, by an order dated 16.8.1988, about 66 recruits of the year 1985 were said to have been discharged with effect from 19.8.1988 P.M. Surprisingly, numberhing appears to have been done so far as 1981 83 recruits are companycerned, even after all that has happened as narrated above and the orders of the Government.
In the year 1985, again 34 candidates appear to have been selected and appointed and this also was on ad hoc temporary basis.
They reiterated their respective stand taken before the Tribunal.
On 3.12.1986, these 34 candidates, including Respondents 3 to 5 and 7 in these appeals, were said to have been discharged from service, followed by appointment of 54 candidates on 20.12.1986 in lieu thereof, again as a temporary ad hoc measure.
But, however, the State Government is directed to make statutory rules as expeditiously as possible and report to the registry of this Court.
It is also interesting to numbere that even before the Tribunal and the bench which decided on 22.10.90, O.A. Nos.1179, 1081, 1087 of 1988 and 114 of 1989, those statutory rules have been filed and is referred to in the order itself as Annexure 3 to O.A. No.114 of 1989 and their promulgation on 28.4.88 itself.
After issuing numberices and on hearing parties, while granting leave this Court by an order dated 12.4.93 passed in these appeals C.A.Nos.1935 38 of 1993 finally disposed the same as hereunder Under these circumstances, the appeals are allowed and the direction given by the Tribunal are set aside and the appointments made are valid according to existing rules.
One reason, which weighed with the Tribunal, was that the termination of those ad hoc appointees and their substitution by another set of ad hoc appointees was number warranted and was illegal.
Of the 34 candidates discharged on 3.12.1986, about 25 persons appear to have filed two O.A. Nos.246 of 1986 and 96 of 1987 challenging the same before the Tribunal.
Home Department companytaining the statutory rules viz.,
The Tribunal by its order dated 25.8.1987 set aside the order of discharge dated 3.12.1986 and directed their re appointment within the time stipulated as ad hoc appointees till regular appointments are made under statutory rules or executive instructions, if any, issued therefor by the Government.
In the meantime, on 25/26.6.1988 fresh recruitment tests though held under 1988 rules, only candidates recruited in 1985 along with some others seem to have appeared and those who got appointed in 1981 1983 chose number to appear at all.
A total of 74 candidates were said to have been so appointed between 1981and 1983, specifically mentioning in their appointment orders that they were being appointed on temporary basis and that their appointments are liable to be terminated at any time without prior numberice.
In the fresh recruitment test, about 68 candidates were said to have been selected on 22.8.1988.
PIA13/83/24398/p dated 28.4.88 issued by the Government of Orissa.
Petition RP No.17 of 1997 dated 1.3.1997 and O.A.No.206 of 1989 dated 3.1.1997 by the parties, who were Private Respondents before the Tribunal and the State of Orissa as well as the Director General and I.G. of Police together filed C.A. No.3980 of 1998 against the order dated 3.1.1997 in O.A. No.206 of 1989.
II that the Assistant in the office of the IG of Police since re designated as the DGP and IGP shall be the appointing authority in respect of the ministerial staff of DGP and IGP office.
the Orissa Ministerial officers of the office of the Director General and Inspector General of Police and certain other officers method of recruitment and companyditions of service rules, 1988 under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, pursuant to the directions of this Honble Court on 19.1.88.
While matters stood thus between the date of exemption 16.12.1980 and the actual making of the statutory rules, i.e., 28.4.1988, the DGP was number and then making recruitment of Assistants purporting to exercise the powers under the old Police Manual, by calling for names from the Employment Exchanges and holding a summary written examination and interview.
A.Nos.3978 3979 of 1998 have been filed challenging the orders of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal at Bhubaneswar in Misc.
RAJU, J. Delay companydoned.
I and Appendix 41 of Vol.
When the IG Police sought exemption from those rules in respect of the Ministerial Staff for his office, the Government appears to have passed an Order dated 16.12.1980 granting exemption but at the same time calling upon, in the very same order, for submission of draft rules regulating the recruitment, training and promotion of Assistants in the Police offices, to the Government at an early date for its approval.
Thereafter, Rules came to be issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, known as the Orissa Ministerial Service Method of Recruitment of Junior Assistant in the office of Heads of Departments Rules 1975, empowering the Board of Revenue to select LD Assistants number called Junior Assistants through companypetitive examinations to be held once every year, with further provisions for the companystitution of Board, the necessary syllabus therefor, further enabling the Chairman of the Board to allot candidates, as a result of which the Ministerial Staff for the DGP and IGP also came to be recruited thereunder.
