SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 646

2009(3) Supreme 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha & Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
BSNL & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Abhishek Shukla & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2239 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.7676 of 2006)
Decided on : 08-04-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :K.C. Kaushik, Rahul Kaushik, Mrs. Shilpi and Mrs. Sarlachandra, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Navin Chawla, Advocate.

Headnote:Service Law – Issue of advertisement for recruitment to post of Telecom Technical Assistants (General Central Services) Group ‘C’ non gazetted, non-ministerial in the office of Telecom District Manager, Pilibhit – Names of respondents placed in wait list – Two of select list candidates not joining posts – Representations made by respondents – Rejected on premise that no provision was there in recruitment Rules for maintaining such a wait list – Writ Petition – Allowed by single judge directing that petitioners would be entitled to be given appointment on post of Telecom Technical Assistants – Intra Court appeal – Order of single judge modified to extent that appellants to consider to fill up two vacancies which remained unfilled because two selected persons did not join by offering appointment letters to respondents – Review Application – Dismissed – Appeal thereagainst – Plea of appellants that there being no provision in statutory rules for preparing a select list with waitlist candidates impugned judgment cannot be sustained and life of panel being one year, it was impermissible for High Court to direct appellant to consider candidature of appellants – No doubt whatsoever that allegations contained in writ petition that in all other districts selection committee had prepaid wait list and a large number of appointments had been made therefrom were not specifically been denied – Appellant being a state within meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India, it must have its Law department – Difficult to concieve that concerned officers of department could not place factual and legal position before Court as contended – Ordinarily life of such a panel is one year – However select list was approved by appellant only in August 2003 and respondents having made representations within one year therfrom, said requirement also stood satisfied in the instant case – Moreover said question had not even been raised before courts below – Appeal having no merit dismissed. (Paras 12 to 16)

       Facts of the case :

        1. An advertisement was issued herein in the instant case for recruitment to post of Telecom Technical Assistants (General Central Services) group ‘C’ non gazetted, non-ministerial in the office of Telecom District Manager, Pilibhit. Names of respondents were placed in waitlist. Two of select list candidates did not join posts. Representations made by respondents were rejected on premise that no provision was there in recruitment Rules for maintaining such a waitlist. Writ Petition thereagainst was allowed by single judge. However on intra court appeal order of single judge was modified. Review Application thereagainst was dismissed.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court

       Findings of the Court :

        Ordinarily life of such a panel is one year. However select list was approved by appellant only in August 2003 and respondents having made representations within one year therefrom, said requirement stood satisfied. Moreover said question was not raised before courts below. Appeal was dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 1.02.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court whereby and whereunder an order dated 1.12.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court was modified as also the order dated 3.1.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said High Court dismissing the review application filed by the appellant herein.

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. An advertisement was issued by the Chief General Manager, U.P. (W), Telecom Circle, Dehradun for recruitment to the post of Telecom Technical Assistants (General Central Services) Group ‘C’ non-gazetted, non-ministerial in the office of Telecom District Manager, Pilibhit. In the said advertisement, it was specified that there exists five vacancies for the post of General Category candidates, two reserved for the candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes and one for the Scheduled Caste candidates. Indisputably, pursuant to the said advertisement a large number of applications were filed. A Selection Committee was constituted which prepared a select list. It is also beyond any doubt or dispute that names of the appellants herein were placed in the waitlist.

Results were published on 8.8.2002 which is in the following terms :

“Sl. Roll No. Name Date of Caste Total Roster No. Birth

1 14-035 Alok Kumar Rathor 05.07.78 OBC 724 Gen.

2 14-063 Ravi Kumar 16.07.74 SC 659 Gen.

3 14-008 Pradeep Kumar 05.01.76 OBC 650 Gen.

4 14-059 Sanjay Kumar 01.01.78 OBC 645 OBC

5 14-004 Chandra Pal Singh 12.05.78 SC 611 SC

6 14-129 Amit Vaish 16.07.74 OC 611 Gen.

7 14-058 Kamlesh Kumar Maurya 02.07.80 OBC 608 Gen.

8 14-112 Prem Pal 02.01.79 OBC 600 OBC

9 14-085 Abhisek Shukla 01.08.79 OC 596 Gen.

10 14-151 Jitendra Pal Gangwar 21.04.79 OBC 589 SC”

It is furthermore not in dispute that Shri Pradeep Kumar and Shri Kamlesh Kumar Maurya, whose names appear at Serial No.3 and 7 at the said select list did not join their posts. First respondent belongs to General Category candidate whereas the second respondent belongs to Scheduled Castes category candidate.

The selected candidates were sent for training for a period of two months. They had, however, been given placement orders only on 29.8.2003. Having come to learn that two of the select list candidates had not joined, appellants made representations on or about 12.9.2003 and 20.9.2003 respectively. The said representations were, however, rejected only on the premise that there was no provision in the Recruitment Rules for maintaining such a waitlist.

4. Appellants filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs :

“Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 24.11.2003, issued by the Respondents. (Annexure-7)

Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to issue appointment letters to the Petitioners, in the light of the result declared by the respondents.”

5. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant herein and affirmed by one Shri B.S. Bhandari, it was averred :

“That in reply to the contents of para 10, 11 and 12 of the writ petition, it is stated that there is no provision of waiting list by the department.”

6. By reason of a judgment and order dated 1.12.2004, a learned Single Judge of the High Court noticed that most of the averments made in the writ petition had not been traversed and, thus, the same would be deemed to have been admitted. The writ petition was, therefore, allowed, directing :

“In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 26.9.2003/24.11.2003 passed on the representation of the petitioner, is quashed. The petitioners would be entitled to be given appointment on the post of Telecom Technical Assistants under Telecom District Manager, Pilibhit in pursuance to the select list dated 05.08.2002. There will be no order as to cost.”



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top