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.