LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus K.V. VIJEESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. K.V. VIJEESH FEBRUARY 27, 1996 (AM. AHMADI, CJ, M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K. VENKA TASWAMI, JJ.) Service Law: A B Select list-Candidates on panel-Acquire no indefeasible right to ap- C pointment-Unless the Rule provides State is under no legal duty to fill all vacancies-But State must act bona fide. Railways-Diesel Assistant~--Recruitment of-Written Examina- tion-Viva voce-Panel-Candidate on panel not given appointment-Ap- plication before Tribunal for appointment-Direction by Tribunal to consider D appointment in any existing or next available vacancy-Held not justified-On facts held appointments were made according to comparative merits of the candidates-Rejection of respondent's claim who was at the bottom of the select list held not arbitrary. Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, AIR (1991) SC 1612, relied .on. E · Prem Prakash v. Union of India, AIR (1984) SC 1831, explained and distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4032 of ~ F From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.94 of the Central Ad- ministrative Tribunal at Ernakulam in Kerala in O.A No. 146(5 of 1993. R: Venugopal Reddy, AD.N. Rao and AK. Sharma for the Appel- lan~. G T.T. Kunhikannan for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Special leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. H ' 1077 1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) 2 S.C.R. A By its Employment Notice No. 1/90 the Railway Recruitment Board invited applications for 308 vacancies in the post of Diesel Assistants in Palghat and Trivandrum Divisions of the Southern Railways. Among others the respondent applied for the above post, and on his success in the written examination and viva voce test held for the purpose, the Board included B his name in the select list, published under Notification No. 4/91 dated March 25, 1991 and forwarded the same to the Southern Railway Ad- ministration recommending appointments therefrom. As in spite of his such inclusion in the panel he was not being given any appointment, he filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Er- nakulam, contending inter alia, that even though in the select list his i'ank C was 172 he had not been given appointment but persons lower in rank were appointed. Accordingly, he prayed for necessary directions for his appoint- ment as a Diesel Assistant in accordance with his position in the panel. In contesting the application the appellant-Railways contended that D subsequent to the issuance of the notification dated March 25, 1991 the Railways had taken a policy decision that the requirement of Diesel Assistant staff had to be reduced owing to impending absorption of Steam surplus staff. As a result, the bottom 25 persons in the select list had to be withdrawn from ·the list recommended for employment. The Railways E further contended that the select list was not prepared in order of merit and that the respondent's contention that his rank in the list was 172 was incorrect. Indeed, according to the Railways, the respondent was at the bottom of the list and consequently his name, besides others', had to be withdrawn on .the reduction of the number of vacancies. F G While accepting the Railways' contention that the select list was not prepared in order of merit and conceding their right to adjust the number of vacancies according to requirement or according to policy, the Tribunal observed that there must be some protection given to those who had been declared successful. The Tribunal further observed that the least that was expected of the Railw~ys was that such of the candidates who were successful but could not be accommodated as a result of reduction in the number of vacancies could be employed subsequently when the vacancies arose. In making the above observations the Tribunal quoted and relied upon the following passage from the judgment of this Court in Prem H Prakash v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1831 : Po- • -- - ( t V.0.1.v. KV. VIJEESH 1079 "Once a person is declared successful according to the merit list A of selected candidates which is based on the declared number of vacancies the appointing authority has the responsibility to appoint him even if the number of vacancies undergoes a change after his name has been included in the list of selected candidates." With the above observations the Tribunal directed the Southern B Railways to consider the responde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.