Back
2000 Supreme(Gau) 91
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
P.G.Agarwal, J.
Surya Kumar Das -Appellant
Versus
State of Assam -Respondent
Civil Rule Nos 18 of 1994 and 5294 of 1996
Decided On : 02-03-2000
D.Goswami, M.K.Choudhary, B.K.Sharma, M.Bhuyan, B.Banerjee, A.K.Phukan
Inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, and the extension of an expired select list may prejudice other candidates.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Appointment of Candidates from Expired Select List - Civil Rule No. 18 of 1994, Civil Rule No. 5294 of 1996 - Summary of Acts and Sections: No specific acts and sections referenced. The court discussed the issuance of mandamus for appointment from an expired select list and the lack of entitlement to appointment based on inclusion in the select list. The court also considered the policy decisions of the respondent State for not making appointments and emphasized that the select list's extension would prejudice other candidates.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought direction for appointment from expired select lists for LDA-cum-Typist and Grade III posts in the Bodoland Autonomous Council. The select lists had expired, and no appointments were made from them.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief as no appointments were made from the expired select lists, and the policy decisions of the respondent State for not making appointments were not arbitrary.
Issues: Validity of mandamus for appointment from expired select lists, entitlement to appointment based on inclusion in the select list, and policy decisions of the respondent State for not making appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that inclusion in the select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment and that the extension of the select list would prejudice other candidates. It also highlighted that the policy decision of the respondent State for not making appointments was not arbitrary.
Final Decision: Both the writ petitions were dismissed, and the petitioners were not entitled to any relief.
2. I have heard Mr. AK Phukan and Mr. BK Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners of the respective writ petitions and Mr. D. Goswami, learned Addl Senior Govt Advocate and Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Govt Advocate for the State.
3. Surya Kumar Das, petitioner in Civil Rule No. 18 of 1994 belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and he participated in the selection process for the post of LDA-cum-Typist for District level offices conducted by the Central Recruitment Committee, Dibrugarh. Petitioner's name appeared at SI. No.2 of the select list belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, as a separate list was prepared for the reserved class and another list for the general classes. Although some appointments were made the petitioner was not appointed. As per office memorandum dated 15th June, 1992, the select list remains in force for 12 calendar months from the date of announcement. The select list in the present case was published on 25.6.93/30.6.93. As no appointment was made and as the select list expired ou 31.12,93 as claimed by the Govt, the petitioner approached this Court for a direction for quashing the Govt order regarding expiry of the select list on 31.12.93 and for a direction to appoint the petitioner.
4. Civil Rule No. 5294 of 1996 was instituted by All Bodoland Autonomous Council Grade III Selected Candidates Association, for short 'the Association'. The petitioner Association represents the interest of 162 selected candidates who care impaneled for appointment to Grade III posts in the Bodoland Autonomous Council, hereinafter referred to as BAC. In response to advertisement dated 1.1.94 issued by the Principal Secretary, BAC, a large number j of candidates, applied for. Thereafter, written test, typing test and viva-voce .was held and vide notification dated 14.10.95 a select list of 162 persons for recruitment to Grade III was published. However, as no appointment was made from the said select list some agitation programme was taken by the members of the petitioner's Association and the authorities gave assurance but nothing fruitful came out. As the validity of the said select list was to expire on 14.10.96 and as no appointments were made the petitioners filed the present case for extending the validity of the select list and for a direction for appointment. This Court vide order dated 10.10.96 provided :
"The appointment to the Class III posts under the BAC shall be subject to the outcome of the civil rule and pendency of this civil rule shall not be a bar for the respondents to appoint the selected candidates as per select list (Annexure 3) to the writ application."
From the pleadings of the parties, it is seen that in Civil Rule No.5294 of 1996 although a select list of 162 candidates was prepared, none has been appointed from the said select list and the said select list was allowed to expire on 14.10.96. The petitioners have filed an additional affidavit stating that during the year 1997-98 some persons were appointed to a certain post in BAC outside the select list. In Civil Rule No. 18 of 1994 it is stated by the petitioner that some appointments were made on the basis of the Select List and thereafter the authorities refused to act on the said select list mainly on the ground that the Central Recruitment Committee system was abolished and that the select list had expired. There was however no allegation that any one below the petitioner was appointed. According to the respondents the said select list expired on 31.12.93, whereas according to the petitioner it expired on
