LexALL INDIA SC AND ST EMPLOYEES ASSN. AND ANR versus A. ARTHUR JEEN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•. ALL INDIA SC AND ST EMPLOYEES ASSN. AND ANR. A v. A. ARTHUR JEEN AND ORS. APRIL 12, 2001 [S. RAJENDRABABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.) B SeTVice Law : India Railway Establishment Manual : Employment-Notification-Issue of-Post of 'khalasis' (Group D)- c 330 vacancies notified-Subsequently, vacancies increased to 917 without notification-After inteTView panel of selected candidates published-Adminis- trative Tribunal quashed entire selection list-But High Court reversed this judgment-Vested rights of selected candidates-Existence of-Held: Selected candidates do not acquire any indefeas.ible rights for appointment even against D existing vacancies-State is under no legal duty to fill up any or all vacancies- However, enormous money and man-hours have been spent in preparing the panel of selected candidates-Hence, Tribunal not justified in quashing the entire penal of selected candidates. 'Khalasis '-Selection of-Awarding of 80% marks without any guide- lines-Validity of-Held: Awarding of 80% marks under different heads is not arbitrary especially when recruitment is to the Group 'D' post of 'Khalasis'. Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 : Section 19. Selection list of candidates-Challenge of--Non-impleadment of neces- sary party-Maintainability of-Selected candidates not impleaded-Effect of-Held : Some of the ·successful candidates at least ought to have been impleaded in a representative capacity-Hence, application liable to be dis- missed-Practice and Procedure. The Railway Board issued Employment notification inviting appli- cation for 330 posts of 'Khaiasis' (Group D). Subsequently, the vacancies were increased to 917 but no notification was issued in this regard. After interview a penal of 917 selected candidates was published in the newspa- pers. 1183 E F G H A B 1184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R. Original applications .were filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the aforesaid selection of the candidates. But the selected candidates were not made parties before the Tribunal. The Tribu- nal quashed the panel of selected candidates on the grounds that the vacancies were increased without notifying the same and that the marking pattern of 80% marks without guidelines had led to wide variations. The High Court reversed this judgment. Hence this Special Leave petition. Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD : 1. Merely because the names of the candidates were in- C eluded in the panel indicating their provisional selection, they did not acquire any indefeasible right for appointment even against the existing vacancies and the S~ate is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. [1190-C] D E Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, [1991] 3 SCC 471, relied on. 2. No fault can be found with the direction of the High Court to issue appointments only to available vacancies on merit out of the candidates included in the panel of selected candidates following rules of reservation. Further, the purpose of issuing notification and giving due publicity is to provide opportunity to as many eligible candidates as possible. It was quite probable that all candidates eligible and interested including a large number oflocal candidates applied for the posts. The time gap between the original notification and the decision to increase posts not being much, it cannot be said that many of the eligible candidates were deprived of applying for the posts looking to the requirements of eligibility. The candidates and their F families have been waiting for a long time with great hopes of getting jobs. G H Enormous money and man-hours have been spent in completing the proc- ess of selection in preparing the panel of selected candidates. Therefore, "' there was no justification for the Tribunal to quash entire panel of selected candidates. [1191-A-E) 3. Before the Administrative Tribunal the successful candidates whose names were included in the panel of selection were not made parties. The argument that since the names and particulars of the successful candidates included in the panel were not given, they could not be made parties, has no force. The applicants before the Tribunal could have made efforts to get the particulars; at least they ought to have impleaded some of the success- - ALLI NDIA SC & ST EMPLOYEE ASSN. v. A. ARTIIUR JEEN [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J.] 1185 ful candidates may be in a representative capacity;
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.