Appeal allowed: set aside order to convene review DPC and complete 2008 recruitment; Regulation 6 recommendations not vesting rights

The SC allowed the appeal and set aside the Division Bench's direction to convene a review DPC and complete recruitment for 2008. The contesting respondents did not acquire any accrued or vested right to selection or promotion to OAS Class-II merely because their names were recommended under Regulation 6; the recruitment process never progressed to final selection under the 1978 Rules/Regulations. The State restructured and abolished the OAS Class-II cadre in 2009, replacing it with a new cadre, so directing appointments under the repealed scheme was contrary to law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the High Court's direction to convene a review D.P.C.
2. Accrued or vested right to promotion of the contesting Respondents.
3. Applicability of old rules versus new rules post cadre restructuring.
4. Validity of the High Court's reliance on previous judgments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the High Court's Direction to Convene a Review D.P.C.
The Division Bench of the Orissa High Court had directed the State to convene a review Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) to consider the cases of the contesting Respondents and complete the recruitment process for 150 vacant OAS Class-II posts for the recruitment year 2008. The Supreme Court found this direction erroneous. The Court emphasized that no right had accrued in favor of the contesting Respondents merely because their names were recommended by their respective Departmental Authorities. The recruitment process did not proceed beyond the initial recommendation stage, and no final list of selected candidates was prepared by the Orissa Public Service Commission.

2. Accrued or Vested Right to Promotion of the Contesting Respondents
The Court held that the contesting Respondents could not claim an accrued or vested right to promotion to OAS Class-II posts in 2008 merely based on their names being forwarded. The recruitment process under the OAS Class II Rules, 1978, and OAS Class II Regulations, 1978, had several steps that were not completed, including the preparation of a list by the Selection Board, consultation with the Orissa Public Service Commission, and the final approval by the State Government. Hence, the contesting Respondents did not acquire any right to promotion.

3. Applicability of Old Rules Versus New Rules Post Cadre Restructuring
The Supreme Court noted that the State had restructured the Orissa Administrative Service cadre in 2009, abolishing the OAS Class-II posts and creating the Orissa Revenue Service Group 'B' posts. The contesting Respondents did not challenge this restructuring. The Court cited previous rulings, including Deepak Agarwal and Union of India v. Krishna Kumar, to assert that the right to be considered for promotion accrues on the date of consideration of eligible candidates, not when vacancies arise. Therefore, the contesting Respondents could not claim appointments under the old rules for an abolished cadre.

4. Validity of the High Court's Reliance on Previous Judgments
The High Court had relied on the decision in Mukti Ranjan Acharya and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors., which allowed promotions under the repealed OAS Class II Rules, 1978. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (S.L.P.) in limine does not constitute a binding precedent. The Court reiterated that the contesting Respondents did not have a vested right to promotion under the repealed rules for an abolished cadre.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, holding that the contesting Respondents did not have a vested or accrued right to promotion to OAS Class-II posts in 2008. The Court emphasized that the recruitment process had not been completed and the cadre had been restructured, abolishing the OAS Class-II posts. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's orders were set aside.

---