U.P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANR. versus GOBARDHAN AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 620 · Decided: 20-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. 
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANR. 
v. 
GOBARDHAN AND ANR. 
B 
SEPTEMBER 20, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
Service Law : 
C 
U.P State Road Transport Corporation-Waiting list of candidates to 
be-recruited during peak season or during suspension of conductors or against 
leave vacancy for 15 days or one month-Appointed after notification in 
newspapers-In respect of absentees seniority not adhered to and juniors 
appointed-Respondent not appointed though some of his juniors were ap-
pointed and regularised-Filed writ petition-High Court directing the Cor-
D poration to appoint him-On appeal h;eld, after cancellation of the wait-list 
procedure, though no one has a right, those on the wait list need to be 
considered in accordance with the rules in view of the fact that their juniors 
got appointment and were even regularise~Appellant-Corporation directed 
to consider the case of respondent as a special case and make appointment 
E according to the procedure-Others who had not approached or would ap-
proach the Court belatedly would not be entitled to any relief 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12286 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31 .. 8.95 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 6727of1993. 
· 
Pradeep Misra for the Appellants. 
S.K. Bhattacharya and P.K. Jain for the Respondents. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
H 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Al-
620 
' 
U.P. STAIB RD. TPT. CORPN. v. GOBARDHAN 
621 
lahabad High Court made on August 31, 1995 in Writ Petition 6727/93. For A 
the recruitment in the year 1980, the Regional Manager of the appellant-
Corporation had prepared a waiting list of 414 candidates to be recruited 
during peak season or during suspension of any conductors or against leave 
. vacancy for L'i days or one month. It would appear that the list continued 
B 
for 1980- 81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. The appointments were to be made 
during the peak season by notification in the newspapers and whoever 
would come within 7 days would be given appointment. Thereafter, in 
respect of absentees, seniority was not being adhered to and juniors were 
given appointments. It would appear that the respondent is one of the 
candidates placed in the seniority list. Since he had not received the 
intimation, he did not join during the peak seasons. He filed a writ petition C 
in 1993 challenging his non-appoint, he took the plea that those juniors to 
him were already appointed and some of them were even regularised. The 
High Court has accepted the contention and given the direction to appoint 
him to the post of conductor since some of his juniors had come to be 
appointed, Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
Shri Pradeep Misra, learned counsel for the Corporation, has con-
tended that the Corporation has evolved the principle of wait list to meet 
the contingencies during peak season etc. The wait- list, for the year 1980 
D 
in fact was cancelled in July 19, 1980; the writ petition which came to be 
filed against the cancellation.were dismissed; the respondent filed the writ E 
petition for the first time in 1983; from, 1988 onwards, the wait-list proce-
dure has been dispensed with and, therefore, the High Court was not 
justified in giving the direction. Shri Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the 
respondent, contended that since the newspaper had no circulation in the 
region in which he was living he could not see the newspaper publication; F 
as a result, he could not appear and join the post; but since his juniors 
came to be appointed and some of them were even regularised, he is also 
entitled to the same benefit. Though we find force in the contention of Shri 
Pradeep Misra that the candidates have no right to the post since they are 
in the wait-list, since the Corporation has already appointed some of the 
juniors who are in the waiting list, necessarily, before following that proce- G 
dure, they should have given intimation to those candidates who were 
placed in the waiting list; if even then they do not turn up, then it could be 
taken that they have waived the right of appointment. But in this case, it 
might be that a candidate who was in the waiting list was under the 
expectation that he would get an order of appointment from the Corpora- H 
622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
. A

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