LexBSNL & ORS. versus ABHISHEK SHUKLA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 544 -~ A BSNL & ORS. v. ABHISHEK SHUKLA & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 2239 of 2009) B APRIL 8, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) Service Law - Appointment/Selection - Advertisement for appointment - Post earmarked for General Category, OBC c and SC - Two of the candidates in the select list, not joining service - Candidates in wait list of selection list seeking appointment on the unfilled posts - Appointment denied on the ground that there existed no provision in statutory rules for preparing select list with waitlist and that one of the posts D was reserved for handicapped candidate - Held: The • ~ candidates in the waitlist entitled to appointment - Plea that in other districts candidates appointed from waitlist not denied - Reservation for handicapped candidate was de-hors advertisement - Their candidature can be considered as they E had made representation within one year from the approval of select list i.e. before the expiry of life of the panel. An advertisement was issued by appellant- Department for recruitment of certain posts. The F advertisement specified that the posts were earmarked for general category OBC and SC. The Selection -~ Committee prepared the select list. Names of the respondents were placed in the waitlist. Appointment was made in August, 2003. Two of the candidates in the select list, since did not join the service, the respondents made G representation in September, 2003, seeking their appointment. The representation was rejected on the ground that there was no provision in the Recruitment •· Rules for maintaining such wait list. Respondent filed writ petition seeking their appointment Single Judge of High H 544 BSNL & ORS. v. ABHISHEK SHUKLA & ANR. 545 Court allowing the petition directed the authorities to A appoint them as per the select list. In intra court appeal, Division Bench of High Court modified the order, directing the authorities to consider to fill up the two unfilled vacancies. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD:1. The allegations contained in the writ petition that in all other districts the Selection Committee had prepared 'waitlist' and a large number of appointments had been made therefrom were not specifically been C denied. [Para 12] [551-D] 2. Appellant is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It must have its law department. It is, therefore, difficult to conceive that the D concerned officers of the department could not place the factual and legal position before the Court as has been contended before this court. [Para 13) [551-E] 3. The contention of the appellant that one of the vacancies had been earmarked for a handicapped E candidate and, thus, it is not possible to comply with the order of the High Court is not acceptable. Such a decision must have been taken only in the year 2003. · Such appointment of a handicapped person, indisputably, is de' hors the advertisement. Therefore, there F is no error in the impugned judgments. [Paras 14 and 15) [551-E-G] 4. Ordinarily the life of a panel is one year. However, the select list was approved by the appellant only in G August 2003 and the respondents having made representations within one year therefrom, the said requirement also stands satisfied in the instant case. Moreover, such a question had not ever been raised before the courts below. Had such a question been H 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R. " A raised, the respondent could have dealt with the same. [Para 15] [551-H; 552-A-B] --:: Girdhar Kumar Dadhich and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2009 (2) SCALE 98 and Am/an Jyoti Borooah v. B State of Assam and Ors. 2009 (2) SCALE 56, referred to. • Case Law Reference: 2009 (2) SCALE 98 Referred to. Para 15 c 2009 (2) SCALE 56 Referred to. Para 15 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2239 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 01.02.2005 of the D Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabd in the Special Appeal No. 59 of 2005. K.C. Kaushik, Rahul Kaushik, Shilpi Kaushik and Sarla Chandra for the Appellants. E Naveen Chawla for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. F 2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order " dated 1.02.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court whereby and whereunder
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.