AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Naidu, J.—A very important & interesting point arises for determination in all these Writ Petitions. All the Petitioners are Ex-Army Personnel''s. After successfully completing their tenure in the Army they have retired & got their names registered in different Zilla Sainik Boards of the State i.e. Cuttack, Ganjam, Dhenkanal, Balasore, Sambalpur & Kalahandi. State Sailors, Soldiers & Airmen''s Boards were constituted by State Government by Home Department Resolution dated 20.4.1965 with a view to look after the welfare of the families of the serving & deceased service personnel & to help them in securing employment, settlement of legal disputes & other problems etc.
By resolution dated 12th December, 1986 (Annexure-3) issued by the Government of Orissa in Home Department, the State Government after setting up Rajya Sainik Board declared that the said Board & Zilla Sainik Board would be the co-sponsoring authority to sponsor suitable Ex-Servicemen against various reserved vacancies In the State Government Departments/Government Undertakings, keeping In view the National Employment Service minutes, wherein Government of India has extended the Co-sponsoring powers to Rajya Sainik Board & Zilla Sainik Board in respect of reserved vacancies under the Central Government/Public Sector Undertakings including Nationalized Banks & to sponsors suitable Ex- Servicemen. The said Resolution further stipulates that for successful implementation of the Co-sponsoring power the Rajya Sainik Board/ Zilla Sainik Boards shall update their live register of Ex-Servicemen. In consonance with the said provisions the names of the retired servicemen was sponsored by different Zilla Sainik Boards as well as Rajya Sainik Boards to different organizations against reserved posts & suitable Ex-Servicemen were favoured with appointments.
While matter stood thus in July, 2006, the Secretary, Rajya Sainik Board, Orissa, Bhubaneswar wrote a letter to the D.G.M & Circle Development Officer, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bhubaneswar intimating him that the Ex-Servicemen are registered with the Zilla Sainik Boards for employment & the Zilla Sainik Boards are controlled arid administered by the Rajya Sainik Board. On the requisition of the employer the Rajya Sainik Board sub-allots vacancies to the appropriate Zilla Sainik Boards. The ZilIa Sainik Boards also possess the power to sponsor the names of eligible retired servicemen out of the list maintained by it for different posts & as such necessary indent be placed before the Zilla Sainik Boards for sponsoring suitable names. In view of the aforesaid decision the Zilla Sainik Boards were requested to sponsor suitable Ex-Servicemen candidates directly to the Bank. The said letter Annexure-5 is assailed in these Writ Petitions.
The grievance of the Petitioners in all these Writ Petitions is that if the employers are directed to call for names from different Zilla Sainik Boards the scope of appointments would be very much squeezed inasmuch the Ex-Servicemen whose name have been registered in Cuttack Zilla Sainik Board will lose the opportunity of being appointed in the vacancy arising in the district of Ganjam or any other district. Consequently they will be prejudiced to a great extent. On the basis of such averments the Petitioners pray that the letter Annexure-5 issued by the Rajya Sainik Board, Orissa to the D.G.M & Circle Development Officer, State Bank of India, Local Mead Office, Bhubaneswar should be quashed & a direction should be issued to engage the Petitioners against the available vacancies anywhere in the State. In other words according to Learned Counsel for the Petitioners the vacancies position should be intimated to the Rajya Sainik Board who in turn will intimate different Zilla Sainik Boards working under it to sponsor suitable names.
After receiving notice a counter affidavit has been filed by Opp. Party Nos. 3, 4 & 5 inter alia taking the stand that Rajya Sainik Board, Orissa, Bhubaneswar & different Zilla Sainik Boards have been established by the State Government to look after the welfare & re-settlement of Ex-Servicemen & their families. The Rajya Sainik Board controls at the State level & coordinates & administers the Zilla Sainik Boards which are the field units of the Sainik Board Organization in the State. It is further stated that keeping the requirement of the State Bank of India & the population of Ex-Servicemen in various districts, the requirement of three modules of State Bank of India were proportionately divided between six Zilla Sainik Boards & allotments made to each Zilla Sainik Board vide letter dated 13.7 .2006 of Rajya Sainik Board, Orissa which was subsequently amended by letter dated 04.8.2006. The 100 vacancies were further sub-allotted to different Zilla Sainik Boards in the following manner:
a) Zilla Sainik Board, Cuttack 23 b) Zilla Sainik Board, Ganjam 15 c) Zilla Sainik Board, Dhenkanal 34 d) Zilla Sainik Board, Sambalpur 18 e) Zilla Sainik Board, Kalahandi 04 f) Zilla Sainik Board, Balasore 06
Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the Petitioners clarifying the position set forth in the counter affidavit A counter affidavit has also been filed by Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2-State Bank of India. It is submitted that the State Bank of India has number of branches through out the State & the posts reserved for Ex-Servicemen are strictly filled up in accordance with the guidelines & stipulations made by the Rajya Sainik Board, Orissa, Bhubaneswar.
Heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length. Perused the materials available on record. The only question which arises for consideration is as to whether engagement of a person can be restricted to a particular district Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that such stipulation is contrary to the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Relying emphasis on Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India, it is submitted that the Constitution gives fundamental right to every citizen of equal opportunity in the matter of employment or appointment under the State. No citizen should be subjected to any discrimination on the various grounds enumerated in the said Article & one of such ground is that the place of residence.
A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of A. V. S. Narasimha Rao and Others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, field that it is only the Parliament which can make the law in a special case under Clause (3) of Article 16 prescribing any requirement as to residence within the State or Union Territory prior to appointment, as a condition of employment. Such power is conferred on the Parliament & is denied to the Legislature of the States under Article 35(a) of the Constitution. The State, therefore, has no right to make a law restricting the appointment on the ground of residence to any particular place(s).
In the case at hand the Rajya Sainik Board instead of monitoring & sponsoring the names of different eligible Ex-Servicemen, irrespective of their place of residence has delegated the said action to Zilla Sainik Boards. Consequently the names of the candidates belong to a particular district will only be sponsored for filling up the, posts reserved for Ex-Servicemen lying vacant in the said District. Other Ex-Servicemen though eligible to the said post would be kept out of the arena of consideration.
In the case of A.V.S Narasimha Rao (supra) the Supreme Court held that the Constitution, as it stands, speaks of a whole State as the venue. In the case of Nidamarti Maheshkumar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, while considering the dispute with regard to admission to MBBS Course the Supreme Court did not appreciate the decision taken to limit the admission from one region in the Medical College. The principle of the said case also squarely applies to the case at hand. In the case of Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, the Supreme Court made it clear that the weightage on the ground of residence is an impermissible consideration & is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution.
The discussions made above leads to a conclusion that district wise restrictions of appointment to the posts available under the State is contrary to the provisions of Article 16(2) & (3) of the Constitution of India.
Keeping the mandates laid down by the Constitution in mind, this Court feels that any person who is a resident of the State & satisfies the criteria''s & other eligibility conditions shall be entitled to be considered for appointment to any of the post lying vacant in the State.
A similar view was also expressed by this Court in the case of Chandramani Jena and Others, Anirudha Mangal and Others and Narahari Sethi and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others, . The said case related to engagement to the post of Swechhasevi Sikhaya Sahayak. Advertisement issued inviting applications were confined only to the residence of the Block in question. After analyzing the law on the point, this Court held that such a restriction is contrary to the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution. The ratio of the said decision squarely applies to the case at hand.
After taking into consideration all the facts & circumstances, this Court disposes of all these Writ Petitions with an observation that the Rajya Sainik Board, Orissa, Bhubaneswar shall monitor & sponsor the names of eligible candidates after collecting the list from different Zilla Sainik Boards so as to give better opportunity to the most suitable person, irrespective of his place of residence. Consequently the restrictions imposed under Annexure of all these Writ Petitions are quashed.
B.N. Mahapatra, J.
I agree.
Writ Petition disposed of.