STATE OF ODISHA & ANOTHER v. ANUP KUMAR SENAPATI & ANOTHER

p. 514 Copy page pinpoint

A “19. In a recent decision rendered by this Court in State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma, (2006) 3 SCC 330, this Court once again had to consider the question of filling up of vacancies over and above the number of vacancies advertised. Referring to the various decisions rendered on this issue, this Court held that filling up of vacancies over and above the number of vacancies advertised would be violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that selectees could not claim appointments as a matter of right. It was reiterated that mere inclusion of candidates in the select list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled. This Court went on to observe further that even if in some cases appointments had been made by mistake or wrongly, that did not confer any right of appointment to another person, as Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality and if the State had committed a mistake, it cannot be forced to perpetuate the said mistake.” D In State of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, it was observed: “56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality. E Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745, Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2003) 3 SCC 548, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC 164, F K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P., (2006) 3 SCC 581, Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 24, State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh, (2009) 5 SCC 65 and Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal, (2010) 2 SCC 422)”

31Copy pinpoint31. It is apparent on consideration of Paragraph 4 of order of G 2004 that only saving of the right is to receive the block grant and only in case grant in aid had been received on or before the repeal of the Order of 2004, it shall not be affected and the Order of 1994 shall continue only for that purpose and no other rights are saved. Thus, we approve the decision of the High Court in Lok Nath Behera (supra) on the aforesaid H aspect for the aforesaid reasons mentioned by us.

p. 515 Copy page pinpoint

[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

32Copy pinpoint32. Thus, we find that the orders passed by the Tribunal and the A High Court in favour of employees are not sustainable. The judgment and order of the High Court in Loknath Behera and Manas Purohit are upheld for the reasons mentioned in the order. The appeals filed by the State of Orissa are allowed and that of employees are hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred. B

Nidhi Jain Appeals disposed of.