LexUNION OF INDIA versus B. VALLUVAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA A v. B. V ALLUV AN AND ORS. OCTOBER 19, 2006 (S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] B Service law: Selection process-Panel for future vacancies-Life of panel is ordinarily one year and can be extended only if statutory rule permits it to C do so-Once panel stands exhausted upon filling up of all the posts, the question of filling future vacancy from exhausted panel would not arise. Jurisdiction: Review jurisdiction-Held: ls limited-High Court, has power of review, D but it must be exercised within the framework of Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure-On facts, High Court erred in allowing the review application without at first finding out whether there was an error on the face of the record. The Department of Personnel and Training issued a circular letter dated E 26.6.1992 stating that whereas validity of panel prepared against promotion quota is generally limited to one year, there is no fixed life of the panel against direct recruitment post, that the panel was prepared for direct recruitment to take care of immediate vacancies and those which are likely to occur in the near future and that a maximum of 10"/o additional persons can be kept on F the panel against the e~isting vacancies at the time of preparation of panel or vacancies likely to occur in the near future. Three vacancies fot: the post of Pharmacist were notified in the year 1999. First respondent alo,ng with others applied for the post. A select list of three candidates was prePfired on the basis of the recommendations made G by the Selection Committee on 27.5.1999. The said three persons accepted the offer and joined services. The Selection Committee, however, made a list of 19 candidates for future appo.intments occurring if any, in the said year. The said select list, according to Appellant, was prepared in violation of the 755 H 756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. A Circular dated 26.6.1992. All the three vacancies in the post of Pharmacist having been filled up, the said panel was directed to be cancelled. B Several candidates purported to be aggrieved therewith, filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), contending that as the panel was drawn for future vacancies, they were entitled to be appointed against the vacancies occurring thereafter and that as several new posts were likely to be created and/or likely to fall vacant in the near future, they should be directed to be appointed in such vacancies. During pendency of the said application, another advertisement was issued for filling up of one vacancy, which occurred in the year 2000. Interview was also held and the said vacancy C had also been filled up. CAT rejected the Original Application, which was questioned by filing Writ Petition before High Court. Division Bench dismissed the said Writ Petition holding that the panel stood lapsed the moment notified vacancies had been filled up. First Respondent filed review application which was allowed by another D Division Bench of High Court by impugned judgment. Hence the present appeal Appellant contended that as the life of the panel was one year, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. E Respondent contended that keeping in view the fact that Respondent No.1 F has been appointed in August, 2005, pursuant to the judgment of the High Court, this Court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The Recruitment process, must be commensurate with the statute or the statutory rule operating in the field. The advertisement was made for three posts. It was not indicated therein that another panel for filling up of the future vacancies was to be prepared by the Selection Committee. In the select list prepared by the Selection Committee, the name of 1st F Respondent was at Serial No.4. Recommendations were made containing the names of 19 persons for future vacancies. Only because a panel has been prepared by the Selection Committee, the same by itself, would not mean that the same should be given effect to irrespective of the fact that there was no such rule operating in the field. The Selection Committee was bound to comply G with the selection process only in terms of the extant rules. It was bound to U.0.1. v. B. VALLUVAN 757 follow the stipulations made in the advertisement itself. Even in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.