2010 (4) Supreme 490
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Orissa High Court)
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
State of Orissa & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Rajkishore Nanda & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2808 of 2008
Decided on : 3-6-2010
AIR 1994 SC 736; 1996) 4 SCC 319; AIR 1996 SC 976; AIR 1998 SC 18; AIR 2010 SC 932; AIR 2001 SC 2900; AIR 2009 SC 747 – Relied upon
(b) Service Law – Appointment – Inclusion in the select list does not confer any indefeasible right of appointment even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled. (Paras 13 and 14)
AIR 1991 SC 1612; (1993) 2 SCC 573; AIR 1996 SC 2340; AIR 1997 SC 2280; (2002) 2 SCC 669; (2005) 9 SCC 22; AIR 2006 SC 789; AIR 2007 SC 2226; (2008) 7 SCC 210; (2009) 1 SCC 386; (2009) 2 SCC 479 – Relied upon
(c) Service Law – Select list cannot be treated as a continuing reservoir of eligible candidates from which vacancies can be filled up as and when required – Select list has a life and cannot be used after its expiry. (Para 15)
(1996) 3 SCC 225; AIR 1996 SC 1145; AIR 1996 SC 2173; (1999) 1 SCC 330; (2000) 3 SCC 699; (2007) 6 SCC 190; (2007) 6 SCC 194; (2008) 7 SCC 210 – Relied upon
(d) Service Law – Appointment – To initiate selection process is exclusive prerogative of the employer/State Administration – There may be vacancies available but the State may not be in a position to initiate the selection process for making appointments – Bona fide decision taken by the appointing authority to leave certain vacancies unfilled, even after preparing the select list cannot be assailed. (Para 17)
(e) Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment to Posts of Junior Clerks in the District Offices) Rules, 1985 – Rule 11(1) – Select list should be the extent of advertised vacancies – The select list containing double the vacancies does not create any vested right in favour of the excess candidates. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
1.15 posts of Junior Clerks in District Sonepur, were advertised on 25.06.1995 with the stipulation that number of vacancies could be increased.
2.Before the selection process could complete, the number of vacancies were increased from 15 to 33 and as per the requirement of Rules, 1985, a merit list of 66 candidates was published on 6.11.1995. The appointments were made on the said posts.
3.The respondents, whose names appeared in the merit list and could not be offered appointment, being much below in the merit list, filed applications before the Tribunal praying for a direction to the State to offer them appointments. The Tribunal directed the State to offer appointment to all left over candidates in the select list of 1995.
4. The State preferred the writ petition against the said common Judgment and order of the Tribunal. The High Court modified the order of the Tribunal issuing direction to the State to offer appointment to those persons who had approached the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J. —
1.The present appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order of the Orissa High Court dated 26.10.2005 passed in OJC Nos. 10582, 11262, 11268, 11269, 11271, 11273, 11275, 11279, 11280, 11324 & 11326 of 2000, by which the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the State of Orissa/Appellant against the Judgment and order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack (hereinafter called as, “the Tribunal”) dated 7.4.2000 issuing direction to the appellant to appoint all the persons whose names appeared in the panel for the selection on the post of Junior Clerk held in 1995.
2.Facts and circumstances giving rise to the present appeal are that in order to fill up 15 posts of Junior Clerks in District Sonepur, applications were invited by an advertisement dated 25.06.1995. The advertisement made it clear that number of vacancies could be increased. The respondents applied in pursuance of the said advertisement along with large number of persons and written examination was held in accordance with the Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment to Posts of Junior Clerks in the District Offices) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter called as, “Rules, 1985”). Before the selection process could complete, the number of vacancies were increased from 15 to 33 and as per the requirement of Rules, 1985, a merit list of 66 candidates was published on 6.11.1995. The appointments were made on the said posts. The respondents, whose names appeared in the merit list and could not be offered appointment, being much below in the merit list, filed applications before the Tribunal praying for a direction to the State to offer them appointments. The Tribunal, vide its Judgment and Order dated 7.4.2000, came to the conclusion that appointments were to be offered to all the candidates till the entire select list stood exhausted. Therefore, the Tribunal directed to offer appointment to all left over candidates in the select list of 1995.
3.Being aggrieved, the State preferred the writ petition against the said common Judgment and order of the Tribunal in the High Court of Orissa and the High Court, vide Judgment and order dated 26.10.2005, modified the order of the Tribunal issuing direction to the appellants to offer appointment to those persons who had approached the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal.
4.Sh. Janaranjan Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State, has submitted that number of vacancies cannot be filed up over and above the number of vacancies advertised. Once the advertised vacancies are filled up, the selection process stands exhausted and the selection process comes to an end. Where the Rules provide to determine the vacancy yearly, life of select list cannot be more than one year and once the life of the select list expires, no appointment can be offered from the panel so prepared. The Tribunal and the High Court committed an error issuing directions to appoint the candidates from the unexhausted part of the select list, which is not permissible in law. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
5.Per contra, Sh. H.P. Sahu and Sh. J.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the appeal contending that if the selection is not held in subsequent years, candidates whose names appear in the panel have to be offered appointments. Therefore, no interference is required with the impugned Judgment and order of the High Court. The appeal lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.
6.We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7.Relevant Rules from Rules, 1985, which are necessary to be considered for deciding the appeal, read as under :-
“Rule 2 Definitions - In these rules unless the context otherwise requires - ................... “Year” means a calendar year. Rule 3 Recruitment Recruitment to the posts shall be made through direct recruitment by means of a competitive examination to be held ordinarily once i
State of Bihar v. The Secretariat Assistant S.E. Union 1986
Prem Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board
Ashok Kumar v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board
Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi
State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma
Mukul Saikia v. State of Assam
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India
Bihar Public Service Commission v. State of Bihar
Simanchal Panda v. State of Orissa
Punjab State Electricity Board v. Malkiat Singh
Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish
Divisional Forests Officers v. M. Ramalinga Reddy
Subha B. Nair v. State of Kerala
Mukul Saikia v. State of Assam
State of Bihar v. Md. Kalimuddin
State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra
Sushma Suri v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup Saroj
K. Thulaseedharan v. Kerala State Public Service Commission, Trivendrum
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.