1. Selection for Assistant Teacher post — Selection panel quashed — Subsequent appeal dismissed on grounds of lack of Employment Exchange sponsorship. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 789
2000(7) Supreme 98
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Kirpal & Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, JJ.
Abani Mahato -Appellant
versus
Kanchan K. Sinha & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2694-2695 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8853-8854 of 1999)
Decided on 17-4-2000
The Court held that when a candidate is directed by a final court order to be considered and interviewed for a post, the resulting selection cannot be quashed on grounds such as lack of Employment Exchange sponsorship, particularly if such sponsorship is not a mandatory legal requirement.
Headnote:Service Law-Panel for the post of Assistant Teacher prepared in which appellant was placed at serial No. 1-Panel quashed in writ petition filed by person placed at serial No. 2 in which appellant was not party-Appeal filed by appellant dismissed on ground that name of appellant had not been sponsored by Employment Exchange-Appellant had been directed in an earlier proceedings by High Court to be considered for appointment and interviewed-Panel made should not be quashed and respondent to proceed further pursuant to panel. (Para 4)
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the absence of sponsorship by the Employment Exchange is a valid legal ground to deny appointment to a selected candidate. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. An unchallenged High Court direction to consider a candidate for appointment renders the subsequent selection process final and not subject to quashing. (Para 4 )
4. A final, unchallenged judicial order directing a candidate's consideration for appointment precludes the quashing of the resulting selection on technical grounds. (Para 4 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court decisions set aside — Respondents directed to proceed based on the original selection panel. (Para 4 )
6. Is sponsorship by the Employment Exchange a mandatory requirement for appointment to a post?
No, it is not necessary that the name of the candidate should have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the appointment. (Para 4 )
7. What is the legal effect of an unchallenged court order directing a candidate to be considered for appointment?
If a candidate was directed by the High Court to be considered for appointment and that judgment became final and unchallenged, the resulting selection should not be quashed. (Para 4 )
ORDER
Special leave granted.
2. The appellant as well as the respondent No. 1 had appeared for an interview for selection to the post of Assistant Teacher. Panel was prepared in which the appellant was placed at Sl. No. 1 and respondent No. 1 who is the son of the Head Master was placed at Sl. No. 2. The said son then filed a writ petition without impleading the appellant as a party and the writ petition was allowed. Communication of the same was sent to the appellant herein by the Counsel for respondent No. 1 and in the letter the appellant was informed that the panel which had been prepared by the Selection Committee pursuant to the interview held on 21st August, 1997 had been quashed on the ground that it was not prepared on that day but was prepared on a subsequent date.
3. The appellant herein then filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the name of the appellant had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the legal decision of this Court in Kishore K. Pati v. District Inspector of Schools, Midnapore & Ors.1 dated 10 January, 2000 in which it has been held that it was not necessary that the name should have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Be that as it may, what is important in the present case is, that the appellant herein had been directed by the High Court in an earlier proceeding to be considered for appointment and be interviewed. That judgment of the High Court dt. 7.8.1997 was not challenged and had become final. This being so, the selection which was made should not be quashed. We allow these appeals, set aside the decision of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and direct the respondents to take further proceedings pursuant to the panel which had been constituted by the Selection Committee. It is further made clear that the salary to the appellant will be paid only from the day he joins duty pursuant to the orders passed in his favour. Formality be completed within two months. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
*************
