G.B. Pattanaik and; U.C. Banerjee, JJ.
1. These two appeals by the Notified Area Council are directed against the judgment and order of the Orissa High Court dated 8-8-1997. By the impugned order the High Court has directed the State Government to pay the contractual amount to 34 employees of the Notified Area Council in the Octroi Department and has further directed to sanction the posts and thereafter consider the question of regularisation. It transpires from the impugned judgment that the Notified Area Council though filed a counter-affidavit but indicated therein that there are no records available with them. The Court therefore called upon the State Counsel to produce the records and on production of the same, it perused the records and ultimately passed the orders in question.
2. Though the Court had the opportunity of going through the records produced by the State Government but it has not noticed the manner in which these respondents were appointed by the Notified Area Council. It transpires that the affairs of the Notified Area Council were inspected by an officer of the State Government and that officer submitted a report on 29-11-1995. That report itself indicates how irregular and illegal the entire selection process was and how at the behest of the Chairman of the Notified Area Council the appointments had been made by the executive officer without even posts being sanctioned by the State Government in the Octroi Establishment. The report further indicates that the Chairman and the executive officer acted beyond their jurisdiction as regards selection of these respondents and further committed serious financial irregularities within the direct knowledge of the executive officer and at the instance of the ex-Chairman and some Councillors. We really fail to understand that with this sort of a report from a public officer on the record, the High Court could have brushed aside the same and issued the impugned direction in question.
3. Having applied our mind to the aforesaid inquiry report into the affairs of the Notified Area Council concerned, we have no manner of doubt that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the impugned direction. In our view a misplaced sympathy has been placed on the respondent employees who appear to have been irregularly recruited without following the process of selection and even in the absence of any sanctioned posts. In that view of the matter, we have no other alternative than to quash the same. These appeals are accordingly allowed.
4. Notwithstanding our allowing the appeals, if the respondents are entitled to any arrears for the services already rendered the same may be paid.