LexST ATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. versus AMRENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ST ATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. v. AMRENDRA KUMAR MISHRA SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 B [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Service law: Appointment-Permissibility of-Non-receipt of appointment letter by C candidate-Representation requesting issuanci of appointment letter made after 2 years of completion of selection process-Delayed filing of Writ Petition-Appointment permitted by Courts below-On appeal, held: The candidate did not have any legal right for appointment, the life of panel having expired-Even if the appointment letter was sent by ordinary post, D that will raise a statutory presumption-In absence of legal right, court should not issue a writ of or in nature of mandamus on the basis of sympathy. The respondent was appointed for the post in question. The selection process was over in 1992. The appointment letter was issued to the respondent. Respondent did not join his duty within specified time. In 1994, he made E representation stating therein that so far he had not received any letter of appointment and he had come to know that even junior persons in the recommended merit list have got appointment. Thereafter he made representations in 1995, 1999 and 2000. He thereafter filed Writ Petition in 2001 after his representation of 1999 was rejected. Writ Petition was allowed by Single Judge of High Court, directing the State to permit him to join the F duty. Letters Patent Appeal against the same was dismissed by Division Bench of High Court. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: It may or may not be that Respondent herein had actually G received his appointment letter. It may be true that the appointment letter was sent by ordinary post; but even in relation thereto a statutory presumption arises. Postal delay by itself may not be a ground to take a sympathetic view. It was, however, expected that he would make enquiries thereabout; particularly when on his own showing, those who were below him in the selection list had H 650 • STATE OF BIHAR ,._ AMRENDRA KUMAR MISHRA [SINHA, J.) 651 already been permitted to join. Admittedly, he came to know thereabout in :A. 1994. He allegedly filed a representation and although no reply thereto was . given, he did not take any step soon thereafter. He filed another representation only in 1995 .. He filed the writ petition after a long period i.e. in 2001 when his purported representation filed in the year 1999 was rejected. He did not · have any legal right to be appointed. In absence of any legal right, the Court should not issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus on the basis of B sympathy. Life of a panel remains valid for a year. Once it lapses, unless an appropriate order is issued by the State, no appointment can be made out of the said panel.1653-F; 654-A; 655-C; 656-G) Madan Lal and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., 11995) 3 SCC 486; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors., j1996) 9 SCC C 309; Surinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr., 11997) 8 SCC 488 and Maruti Udyod Ltd. v. Ram Lal and Ors., 12005) 2 SCC 638, relied on. CIVIL APPELLA.TE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4261 of2006. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 3.3.2005 ofthe'High Court of D Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. No. 130 of2005. Gopal Singh for the Appellants. M.P. Jha, Ram Ekbal Roy and Harshvardhan Jha for the Respondent. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J : Leave granted. The Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board issued an advertisement for appointment of 225 posts of Live Stock Assistants in the F Animal Husbandry Department. Respondent herein pursuant to or in furtherance of the said advertisement applied therefor. He was declared successful. On or about 21.12.1992, Respondent herein along with other successful candidates had been recommended by the Board. Appointment letters were .issued to 195 successful candidates, out of the 200 candidates G recommended by the Commisson. By a Memo. No. 323 dated 21.02.1992, an appointment letter was sent to Respondent asking him to join the. post within fifteen days. He failed to join. Allegedly, on 20.07.1994, he requested Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, to issue an appointment letter to him, stating : H A B c D E 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. "I came to know that the Department had appointed maximum candidates till date and the appointment proceeding is going on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.