Year of allotment seniority in integrated service upheld; validation of appointments and cadre merger challenges rejected.

The statutory scheme for the integrated Orissa Administrative Service continued to recognise seniority by year of allotment, meaning the year to which identified vacancies were attached. Cadre merger in 1973 did not, by itself, repeal the recruitment rules or make that principle unworkable, so direct recruits appointed later against earlier vacancies could be allotted to the relevant year. The validation legislation was described as preserving that seniority approach and balancing competing claims. Seniority was treated as not being a fundamental right, no vested right to a particular rank was shown, and the enactment was not established as arbitrary or discriminatory under Article 14. The absence of advertisement for some vacancies also did not invalidate appointments where no vested right to selection existed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 2 of the Orissa Administrative Service, Class-II (Appointment of Officers Validation) Amendment Act, 1992 was valid and whether the principle of year of allotment continued to govern inter se seniority between direct recruits and merger recruits in the integrated service.

Analysis: The statutory scheme and the long-standing practice of the State recognised seniority on the basis of year of allotment, meaning the year in respect of which a vacancy was decided to be filled. The merger of cadres in 1973 did not repeal the recruitment rules governing the service, either expressly or by necessary implication, and the concept of year of allotment was not rendered unworkable merely because of integration of the cadres. The direct recruits appointed in 1975 against vacancies identified for 1973 could validly be treated as allotted to 1973, and the merger recruits could not claim seniority merely because they entered the integrated cadre on the date of merger. The impugned legislation was designed to implement the earlier binding approach on seniority and to strike a balance between competing claims. Seniority is not a fundamental right, no vested right to a particular seniority position was shown, and the enactment was not demonstrated to be arbitrary or discriminatory under Article 14. The challenge based on absence of advertisement for O.A.S. II vacancies also did not invalidate the appointments, since no candidate acquires a vested right to selection and the Government retained discretion to hold recruitment against identified vacancies.

Conclusion: Section 2 of the 1992 Amendment Act was upheld, the year of allotment principle was sustained, and the challenge to the seniority arrangement failed.

---