important point
The writ court should not, in absence of any legal right, act on the basis of sympathy alone.

Headnote:(a)Service Law – Selection – Members of the Selection Committee before preparing the Select List were entitled to undergo a consultative process so as to enable them to arrive at a consensus in regard to the candidates who should be appointed – As the tabulation process itself was not completed, the question of preparing any Select List also did not arise. (Para 10)
       (b)Service Law – Selection – When the selection process was not completed, there was no question of select list – The candidates figuring in such select list did not have any legal right to appointment – Trite that even validly selected candidates do not have legal right to appointment – No appointment could be made by the State in absence of the Select List – The State could not substitute itself for the Selection Committee. (Paras 13, 15 and 19)
       1991 (2) SCR 567; (1993) 2 SCC 577; (1997) 5 SCC 170; (2000) 9 SCC 283; (2001) 6 SCC 380; (2005) 3 SCC 618; (2006) 10 SCC 261 – Relied upon
       (c)Constitution of India – Article 226 – Ordinarily, the writ court should not, in absence of any legal right, act on the basis of sympathy alone. (Para 20)
       (2003) 3 SCC 374; (2005) 2 SCC 638; 2006 (9) SCALE 549; 2006 (11) SCALE 258; 2006 (13) SCALE 319 – Relied upon.
       Facts of the case :
       1.Government of India sponsored a project commonly known as Operation Black Board during the Eighth Plan period, in terms whereof financial clearance was to be given for appointment of Additional Teachers in all primary / middle schools which had only one teacher in order to improve the standard of education. With a view to implement the said project, the State intended to appoint 7000 to 11000 teachers.
       2.Matter relating to recruitment of Assistant Teachers in Madhya Pradesh is governed by Madhya Pradesh Non-Gazetted Class III Education Service (Non-Collegiate Service) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973. With a view to expedite implementation of the project having regard to the fact that the same was to be implemented within the Eighth Plan period, Rule 10(3) of the Recruitment Rules was amended.
       3.These appeals pertain to recruitment of 64 Assistant Teachers in Phase 3 and 66 Assistant Teachers in Phase 4.
       4.As per the recruitment process, interviews were held in Damoh District for selection of Assistant Teachers.
       5.39 Assistant Teachers filed an original application before the Tribunal for a direction upon the State to issue appointment letters to the selected candidates which was allowed notwithstanding State’s specific plea that matter relating to recruitment of Assistant Teachers has since been entrusted to Janpad Panchayats.
       6.High Court also dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. It, however, did not go into the merit of the matter and based its decision on the purported ‘peculiarity of the case’.
       Findings of the Court :
       Even a selected candidate does not have a legal right to be appointed. High Court erred in deciding the case on sympathy.
       Result : Appeals allowed with cost.

JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J. —

1.Leave granted in SLP.

2.The Government of India sponsored a project commonly known as Operation Black Board during the Eighth Plan period, i.e. 1992-1997 in terms whereof financial clearance was to be given for appointment of Additional Teachers in all primary / middle schools which had only one teacher in order to improve the standard of education. With a view to implement the said project, the State intended to appoint 7000 to 11000 teachers.

3.Indisputably, the matter relating to recruitment of Assistant Teachers in Madhya Pradesh is governed by Madhya Pradesh Non-Gazetted Class III Education Service (Non-Collegiate Service) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as said Rules). In terms of the said Rules, the method of recruitment was to be by holding competitive examination followed by interview. With a view to expedite implementation of the project having regard to the fact that the same was to be implemented within the Eighth Plan period, Rule 10(3) of the Recruitment Rules was amended on or about 10.05.1993 by adding a proviso thereto which reads, thus :

“Provided that in any specific circumstance of the State Government may, in consultation with the General Administrative Department prescribe the criteria and procedure for selection of candidates.”

4.For the aforementioned purpose, Selection Committees were constituted for recruitment of Assistant Teachers in each and every district. Selections were to be made district-wise by inviting applications from the Employment Exchanges. The Selection Committee was to prepare a panel upon considering the eligibility criteria of the candidates concerned as also upon taking viva voce list.

5.Recruitment process was started in the State on or about 5.08.1993. Selection process was to be started from 13.08.1993 and was to be completed within a period of about one month, viz., 13.08.1993 to 15.09.1993. Appointments were to be made in phases.

In these appeals, we are concerned with recruitment of 64 Assistant Teachers in Phase 3 and 66 Assistant Teachers in Phase 4.

As per the recruitment process, interviews were held in Damoh District for selection of Assistant Teachers from 1.09.1993 to 9.09.1993. Questioning, however, the validity of the amendment to Rule 10(3) of the Recruitment Rules, one Zila Mansevi Shikshak Sangh filed an original application before the Administrative Tribunal. The said application was marked as Application No. 2395 of 1993. An interim order was passed therein directing that no appointment should be made to the persons selected for the appointment as Assistant Teachers in terms of the said Scheme. When the Select List for Assistant Teachers for Damoh District was under preparation, a telephonic information was received by the appropriate authority as regards the interim order passed by the Tribunal. Further selection process was directed to be stayed pursuant thereto. No Select List, therefore, was prepared by the District Selection Committee. No tabulation was done in respect of the interviews of the candidates and in absence of preparation of tabulation, the Select List could not have been and was not prepared.

By an order dated 18.03.1994 the State Administrative Tribunal declared the said amendment to be illegal being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved thereby, the State Government and other aggrieved candidates filed Special Leave Petitions before this Court and by an order dated 04.01.1995, this Court stayed the said order of the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that on 24.04.1995 the State Government issued offers of appointments in favour of the candidates who had been selected in the year 1993 except those who had appeared in the interview before the Selection Committee of the Damoh District. By an order dated 1.12.1997 this Court in Arun Tewari v. Zila Mansevi Shikshak Sangh,1 [(1998) 2 SCC 332], upheld the selection process.

6.39 Assista

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1312

important pointThe writ court should not, in absence of any legal right, act on the basis of sympathy alone.

Cases Referred (12)

important point
The writ court should not, in absence of any legal right, act on the basis of sympathy alone.