LexV. RANGANATHAN versus N. BASKARAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010) 11 S.C.R. 548 V. RANGANATHAN v. N. BASKARAN AND ORS. (Special Leave Petition (c) No. 18247 of 2006) SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Service law: Appointment of Principal - Unsuccessful candidate seeking direction upon the authority to appoint him C to the post instead of selected candidate - Tribunal directing the authority to appoint him to the post - Writ petitions by the selected candidate and the authority - High Court allowing the writ petitions - Held: No reason to interfere with the order of the High Court - Appointment process was fair, transparent o and reasonable - Challenge by unsuccessful candidate was not for quashing of appointment made and his prayer was limited to a direction to the authority to appoint him to the post - Education Department was a/so not given an opportunity of hearing by tribunal - Moreover, the selection list showed E that the unsuccessful candidate was placed at rank 10 and in the reserve list there were three more candidates placed over him- Administrative law - Opportunity of hearing. The petitioner and respondent no.1 applied for the post of Principal in Government Higher Secondary F School and on the basis of preliminary scrutiny were called for interview alongwith the other candidates. Respondent no.1 was selected for the post. The petitioner filed original application (OA) before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking direction upon the G U.P.S.C. to appoint him to the said post under the· Scheduled Caste category instead of respondent no.1. The tribunal allowed the OA. Respondent no.1 and U.P .S.C. filed writ petitions challenging the order of the tribunal. The High Court allowed the writ petitions. The H 548 V. RANGANATHAN v. N. BASKARAN AND ORS. · 549 instant special leave petition was filed challenging the A order of the High Court. Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court HELD: 1. There was no reason to differ with the views expressed by the High Court regarding the work experience of respondent no.1 at the Higher Secondary level which was found to be 10 years and 4 months, whereas the period of qualifying service was 10 years. The methodology adopted by the respondents in arriving B at such finding was fair and transparent and also C reasonable. Furthermore, the petitioner had not even prayed for quashing of the appointment issued to respondent no.1 and his prayer in the,OA before the Tribunal was limited to a direction being given to the U.P.S.C. to appoint him to the post of Principal in a Higher D Secondary School in Pondicherry under the Scheduled Caste category instead of respondent No.1. Besides, before setting aside the appointment of respondent no.1, no opportunity was given to the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Pondicherry, to answer the questions which were raised by the petitioner. The selection list produced by the U.P.S.C. showed that the petitioner was placed at rank No.10 in the reserve list and even in the reserve list there were three more candidates placed above him. Considering the same, there was no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. [Paras 14, 15] [554-F-G; 555-A-D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. 18247 of 2006. From the Judgment & Order dated 23.08.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in WP Nos. 41237 of 2005 & 10771 of 2006. E F G H 550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 11 S.C.R. A K.V. Vishwanathan, G. Balaji, Mahalakshmi Pavani (for Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.) for the Petitioner. R. Venkatramani, Gurukrishna Kumar, Srikala Gurukrishna Kumar, Binu Tamta, Upasana Nath, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. 8 Aristotle, Prabu Rama Subramanian, Aljo K. Joseph for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. The Respondent No.1 herein, c Shri N. Baskaran, and the Union Public Service Commission filed two separate w'rit petitions, being W.P. Nos.41237 of 2005 and 10771 of 2006, challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, on 7th December, 2005 in O.A. No.689 of 2004. The relief prayed for o by the Petitioner herein, who was the Applicant in the Original Application, was for a direction upon the Union Public Service Commission (U.P.S.C.) to appoint him to the post of Principal in a Higher Secondary School in Pondicherry under the Scheduled Caste category instead of Shri N. Baskaran, E pursuant to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.