JUDGMENT :

1. The present Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the original plaintiff, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2004 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Bhavnagar in Regular Civil Appeal NO.162 of 2002, whereby the First Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2002 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.995 of 1993 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bhavnagar.

2. The present appeal has been admitted for the following substantial questions of law.

“1) Whether a select list can be operated qua a candidate below in the select list particularly when there is no provision of law limiting the life of the select list?

(2) Whether candidates belonging to reserved category below in the select list can be appointed ignoring the candidates belonging the general category?

(3) Whether any time limit as regards appointment on compassionate appointment can be prescribed and in the facts and circumstances of the present case such a time limit was prescribed?”

3. The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondents are the original defendants. For the brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the Trial Court i.e. plaintiff and defendants.

4. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.995 of 1993 before the learned Trial Court, inter alia, contending that his father was working in the defendant and he came to be retired upon attaining the age of superannuation. It is the case of the plaintiff that there is Standing Order No.295 dated 19.12.1981 of the defendant and as per clause 9 thereof, provision was made to give service to the children of the retired employee of the defendant and there was also provisions made for age relaxation to such persons. That the plaintiff under the provisions of General Standing Order (herein after referred to as G.S.O.) applied for the post of meter reader on 24.04.1990 to the defendant and he came to be declared as successful in the interview. It is the further case of the plaintiff that waiting list was prepared of 14 successful candidates and his name was placed at Sr.No.5 therein.

4.1. According to the plaintiff, out of 14 candidates, 9 candidates were appointed who were helper and candidates at Sr.Nos.1, 6 and 7 were appointed as meter reader in the year 1990 and thereafter candidate at Sr.No.2, namely Mr.V.K.Gohil came to be appointed in the year 1992 by the defendant.

4.2. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that despite he was placed at Sr.No.5 in the said list, he was not given appointment and other candidates having the same category and whose names appeared below the plaintiff, were given appointment by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also contended that he had enough experience as a meter reader and despite the number of communications for appointing him, he has not been appointed as meter reader and instead on 27.12.1993, he was called for the interview by the defendant. The plaintiff has challenged this action of calling him for interview and filed a suit for declaration and injunction and prayed to declare that the selection panel dated 24.04.1990 for the post of meter reader is still in force and for directing the defendant to give appointment to the plaintiff on the post of meter reader and for ancillary reliefs.

5. It appears from the record that on service of summons, the defendant no.1 did not filed any reply, but, reply was filed on behalf of respondent no.2 at Exhibit 9. The contention of the defendant is that it has not issued G.S.O. No.295 dated 19.12.1988. It has contended that selection panel dated 24.04.1990 for the post of meter reader was prepared by the defendant and the said selection panel has life of one year as per the rules of the defendant and after expiry of period of one year, the plaintiff cannot claim any relief based on such list. It is also contended that candidates at Sr.No.1, 6 and 7 of the selection list have been