2006 Supreme(SC) 985

2006(8) Supreme 352
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Calcutta High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
Union of India & Ors.—Appellants
versus
B. Valluvan & Ors.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4554 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7903 of 2004)
Decided on 19-10-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : B. Datta, S. Wasim A. Qadri and D.S. Mahra, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Gaurav Jain and Ms. Abha Jain, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Only because a penal has been prepared by Selection Committee, same by itself would not mean that same should be given effect to irrespective of fact that there was no such rule operating in the field.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Draw of panel for future vacancies—Recruitment process must be commensurate with statute or statutory rule—Only because a panel has been prepared by Selection Committee same by itself would not mean that same should be given effect to irrespective of fact that there was no such rule operating in field—Three vacancies for post of Pharmacist were notified in 1999—Select list of three candidates was prepared on basis of recommendations made by Selection Committee and said three persons were appointed—Selection Committee made a list of 19 candidates for future appointments—Original Application was filled challenging cancellation of panel—Selection for one vacancy in 2000 was filed up by advertising post—Tribunal dismissed the application—Writ petition against order was also dismissed by Division Bench—Review application was however allowed by Division Bench—Appeal—Division Bench committed serious error in entering into merits of matter while exercising review jurisdiction—No finding was arrived that there existed an error on face of record—Impugned judgment could not be sustained—Appointment of respondent made in 2005 pursuant to High Court order could not be upheld as sympathy alone could not be a ground to allow High Court judgment to be sustained which was ex-facie illegal.

       Held : Recruitment process, as is well known, must be commensurate with the statute or the statutory rule operating in the field. We have noticed hereinbefore, advertisement was made for three posts. It was not indicated therein that another panel for filling up of the future vacancies was to be prepared by the Selection Committee. In the select list prepared by the Selection Committee, the name of 1st Respondent was at Serial No.4. Recommendations were made containing the names of 19 persons for future vacancies. Only because a panel has been prepared by the Selection Committee, the same by itself, in our opinion, would not mean that the same should be given effect to irrespective of the fact that there was no such rule operating in the field. The Selection Committee was bound to comply with the selection process only in terms of the extant rules. It was bound to follow the stipulations made in the advertisement itself. Even in the advertisement it was not indicated that a select list would be prepared for filling up future vacancies. The Selection Committee, having been appointed only for recommending the names of suitable candidates, who were fit to be appointed, could not have embarked upon the question as regards likelihood of future vacancy.(Para 9)

       Life of a panel, as is well known, must be for a limited period. It is governed by the statutory rules. From the circular letter dated 26.6.1992 it is evident that ordinarily the life of the panel should be for one year. What had been indicated therein was that the panel prepared for recruitment should not be unduly inflated. Vacancies should ordinarily be notified keeping in view the immediate future need. It has categorically been stated that only upto a maximum of 10 additional persons were kept in a panel against the existing vacancies which were likely to occur in future. The said circular letter was meant to be applied in a case where, thus, more than 10 vacancies were notified. It did not have any universal application. By reason of the said circular letter, the ordinary life of the panel was not to be extended. Thereby no new practice or rule was brought into force. (Para 11)

       The Division Bench of the High Court committed a serious error in entering into the merit of the matter while exercising its review jurisdiction. The courts jurisdiction to review its own judgment, as is well known, is limited. The High Court, indisputably, has a power of review, but it must be exercised within the framework of Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court did not arrive at a finding that there existed an error on the face of the record. In fact, the High Court, despite noticing the argument advanced on behalf of Union of India that the 1st Respondent had no legal right to be appointed, proceeded to opine that the panel prepared for filling up of future vacancies should be given effect to. The review of the High Court was not only contrary to the circular letter issued by Union of India, but also contrary to the general principles of law.(Para 15)

       The life of a panel ordinarily is one year. The same can be extended only by the State and that too if the statutory rule permits it to do it. The High Court ordinarily would not extend the life of a panel. Once a panel stands exhausted upon filling up of all the posts, the question of enforcing a future panel would not arise. It was for the State to accept the said recommendations of the Selection Committee or reject the same. As has been noticed hereinbefore, all notified vacancies as also the vacancy which arose in 2000 had also been filled up. As the future vacancy had already been filled up in the year 2000, the question of referring back to the panel prepared in the year 1999 did not arise. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained. (Para 16)

       Coming now to the plea of learned counsel that Respondent No.1 has been appointed in August, 2005, in our opinion, is not of much significance. If he has been appointed pursuant to the order of the High Court, the same invariably would be subject to the result of this appeal. Respondent No.1 did not have any legal right to be appointed even out of the said panel. His position was at Serial No.4 and not even at Serial No.1. Therefore, there were three persons in the panel above him. The High Court, therefore, committed a manifest error in issuing the impugned directions. Sympathy alone, in our opinion, cannot be a ground to allow the High Court judgment to be sustained, although, it is ex facie illegal.(Paras 17)