STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. versus MD. KALIMUDDIN AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 314 · Decided: 10-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D . l 
E 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
v. 
MD. KALIMUDDIN AND ORS. 
JANUARY JO, 1996 
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ AND S.C. SEN, J.] 
Service Law : 
Bihar Government Assistant Teachers Service Encadrement Appoint-
ment and Transfer Rules, I 975 : 
R. 5(6}-Assistant Teachers--Seledion (If-Select list-Government 
giving appointment to sotne o.f the Candidates in seriatirn·-Refusal of ap-
pointment to remaining candidates after expiry of one year from date of 
preparation of panet in contemplation o.f revision o.f reservation policy--Writ 
petition by candidates not appointed:--/nterim order by High Court directing 
continuance of panel beyond one' year-Held, continuance of panel is violative 
of statutory rule and illegal-Government not obliged to fill up existing 
vaC.:ancies ({it Was considering a change in reservation policy. 
A panel of 273 persons including the respondents for appointment 
to the post of Assistant Teacher in the State of Bihar was prepared by the 
Selection Committee on 19.1.1991 after following due selection process. 
Out of this panel, the Director, Primary Education, Bihar approved the 
names of 98 persons for appointment and ultimately 91 candidates joined. 
Rest of the candidates remained on the panel described as waiting list. 
F 
Some of the candidates who were not appointed filed a writ petition before 
the High Court on 20.1.1992. By an interim order of the High Court the 
panel was not allowed to lapse. Aggrieved, the State Government filed the 
present appeal. 
G 
It was contended for the appellant that in view of the provisions of 
clause ( 6) of Rule 5 of the Bihar Government Basic School Assistant 
Teachers Service Encadrement, Appointment and Transfer Rules, 1975, 
the list of candidates prepared for direct appointments would be valid for 
one year from the date of approval of the project by the Selection 
J 
Committee and the order of the High Court to continue the list beyond 
H 
one year was contrary to the ru~e,;_ framed in exercise of the powers under 
314 
• ,-
..\ 
• 
• 
, 
... 
STATE v. MD. KALIMUDDIN [AHMADI, Cl.] 
315 
Article 309 of the Constitution; and that the High Court erred in 
A 
entertaining the writ petition after one year of the preparation of the 
panel, which had expired by then, on the erroneous assumption that the 
writ petition was moved before the expiry of one year. For the respondents 
it was contended that there were in all 160 vacancies when the advertise-
ment was issued and the selection was made and therefore, at least that 
B 
number of candidates should have been appointed after the conclusion of 
the selection; and that even assuming that the person on a waiting list did 
not have a legal right to appointment, the Department could not 
arbitrarily refuse to make appointments from the panel prepared for that 
purpose after raising legitimate expectations. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court was notjustifie~ in holding that the State 
had acted arbitrarily and irrationally in refusing to make appointments 
from the select list. In the first place, the select list had lapsed on the expiry 
of one year. Secondly, the process of appointment was halted as the reser-
vation policy was intended to lie amended or modified. [319-G] 
Shankarsan Das v. Union of India, [1991] 2 SCR 567, relied on. 
2. 
In view of snb-rule (6) of Rule 5 of the Government Basic 
Schools Assistant Teachers Service Encadrement, Appointment and 
Transfer Rules, 1975 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and 
having statutory force, the life of the panel prepared by the Selection 
Committee on 19.1.1991 was of one year which expired on 18.1.1992 by 
force of the rule. Continuance of the panel or list beyond one year would 
c 
D 
E 
be a violation of the statutory rule and, therefore, illegal. Even the court 
F 
could not stop it from lapsing in exercise of judicial discretion unless its 
constitutional validity was questioned. The petition was filed after the 
damage was done i.e. after expiry of the period of one year. 
[317-F-G; 319-B-C] 
3. Even if it is assumed that the panel or select list had not expired 
at the date of filing of the writ petition, the refusal on the part of the 
Government to make appointments from the panel or select list could not 
be condemned as arbitrary, irrational and/or ma/a .fule. The Government 
G 
was desirous of aniending or modifying the reservation policy as is evident 
from its letter dated 27.5.1993 and, therefore, it to

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.