Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
KARUNA LAHIRI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
GAUTAM KUMAR CHAKRABORTY & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT07/12/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 182 1995 SCALE (7)354
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
It is rather unfortunate that the Law Department of the
Orissa State is functioning in unsatisfactory way. It is
reflected in this case also. This is one of the three cases
which have come up before this Court relating to service
matter. Other Departments, look for guidance from Law
Department. Instead of becoming a model functionary, its
officers indulge in litigating their own cases because of
their back-door entry into service.
The appellant claims to have been appointed on ad hoc
basis by proceedings dated October 26, 1990. Gautam Kumar
Chakraborty, the first respondent and the appellant had
joined the Department on January 27, 1986. The Committee
constituted for their selection, found the first respondent
to be number one and the appellant as number 3 in the list.
Admittedly, regular appointments are subject to confirmation
by the Orissa Public Service Commission. Instead of sending
the names to the Commission for consideration, the Minister
recommended for appointment of the appellant. The first
respondent naturally had approached the Tribunal staking his
claim for confirmation. The Tribunal directed the Government
to refer to the matter, in terms of the Rules, to the
Commission which after considering the respective merits of
all the candidates had selected D. Mullick as number 1, B.N.
Sahoo as number 2, appellant as number 3 and Gautam Kumar
Chakraborty as number 4 and recommended for appointment.
Consequently, the application of the respondent was disposed
of. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal passed on
August 27, 1993 in O.A. No.631 of 1992, this appeal by
special leave has been filed. In the face of these facts,
there is no chance for the appellant to argue on merits.
Shri N.K. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, realising the insurmountable difficulty in the
way, contended that the remarks made by the Tribunal would
be construed to be adverse to the appellant for her future
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
prospects. We find that there is no justification for such
an apprehensation. The Tribunal quite rightly had pointed
out the sad way in which the Law Department works. The
claims would be considered only according to rules de hors
any adverse remark.
We do not find it a fit case for interference. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.