LexMAN SINGH versus COMMNR. GARHWAL MANDAL, PAURI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2009) 3 S.C.R. 1102 MAN SINGH v. COMMNR. GARHWAL MANDAL, PAURI & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1366 of 2009) MARCH 3, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Service Law - Appointment/Selection - Names called > · from Employment Exchange for Selection - Short term C employee with the employer also applied for regular appointment on the post - Initially placed in selection list - Later, on rectification of mistake, his name removed from the list - His services terminated - Held: Selection having been made in accordance with rules after rectification of mistake, D exception thereto cannot be taken - The candidate with long service cannot be given preference over the candidate selected as per rules. Appellant was working with the respondent as a E peon on a short term vacancy from time to time from 1989 to 1996. In 1995, the names were called from Employment Exchange for regular appointment to the post. Appellant also applied for the same. Initially his name was at serial No. 3 of wait list of selection. But later his name was deleted and name of another candidate was inserted at F its place. Thereafter, appellant's services were terminated. G H His challenge to the termination order in writ petition was dismissed by High Court. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Appellant does not attribute any ma/a fide to the respondent. It is not his case that the other candidate in fact, had not secured higher marks than him. If a mistake was committed, the respondents were 1102 MAN SINGH v. COMMNR. GARHWAL MANDAL, 1103 PAURI & ORS. entitled to rectify the same. If those mistakes have been A rectified and the irregularities have been removed by preparing the selection list strictly in accordance with rules, no exception thereto can be taken. All persons similarly situated under constitutional scheme are required to be treated equally. [Para 6) [1106~8-C] B "' 1.2. The other candidate was wrongly placed in the category of reserved candidates as he had competed with the general category candidates. Appellant, indisputably, had been appointed on periodical basis. He c might have continued to work as a Peon for a long time but by reason thereof, he did not acquire any indefeasible right to become a permanent employee of the department. [Para 7) [1106-B; 1106-C] 1.3. Respondent had filled up the vacancies in terms D of the rules. Furthermore, appellant's name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. In absence of any proof that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the same could not have been considered. [Para 11) [1109-F, G] E Arun Tiwari and Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 331 and Avtar Singh Hit v. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee and Ors. 2006 (8) SCC 487, referred to. F 1.4. Regularization of services, is impermissible in law. Though belatedly respondents had taken steps to fill up the existing vacancies in terms of the recruitment rules and upon following the constitutional scheme of equality ~ as adumbratet' under Articles 14 and 16 of the G Constitution of India. The plea of the appellant that as he has been working for a long time, should have been given preference over the other candidate cannot be accepted. [Paras 7 and 8] [1106-F, G) H 1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 3 S.C.R. A Secretary, State of Kamataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and · Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 1, followed. Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Ors. 2008 (10) SCC 1, relied on. B Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap Lecturers Association v. State of Kamataka and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 677, . distinguished. 1.5. Even if the other candidate is no longer in service c as stated before the Court; that by itself may not be a ground, particularly at this distant time, to direct appointment of the appellant. Recruitment process · started in the year 1995. A select list was prepared. Ordinarily, the life of a select list is one year. In absence 0 of any notification extending the validity of such select list, no appointment can be directed to be made from such select list. [Para 12) [1110-C] E F Case Law Reference: 2006 (4) sec 1 2008 (10) sec 1 AIR 1992 SC 677 AIR 1998 SC 331 2006 (8) sec 487 Followed. Para 8 Relied on. Para 9 Distinguished. Para 10 Referred to. Para 11 Referred to. Para 11 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1366 of 2009. G From the J
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.