LexVIJAY SINGH CHARAK versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
VIJA Y SINGH CHARAK A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. FEBRUARY 26, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B Service Law: Selection-Preparation of select list-Requirement of- Held: Separate select list should be prepared for a particular year- Candidates eligible in that particular year alone to be considered for selection C in the select list-There cannot be clubbing of vacancies of several years- Clubbing is illegal-Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1965- Regulation 5. Practice and Procedure: Writ Petition-Issue with regard to the validity of select list-High Court sending the matter back to Selection Committee without deciding the issue-Held: High Court abdicated its functions-It D was unjustified and unwarranted The select list was prepared for induction of Officers into Indian Forest Service. There were 35 vacancies and appellant's name was at no. 26. He was not selected. Select list was challenged. Division Bench sent back the select list for consideration to the Selection Committee. State Government prepared E a fresh select list dated 12.9.1995. Appellant's name was not there. Select list of 1995 had clubbed together vacancies for period 1991-1995. Single Judge of High Court dismissed the writ petition. Appeal was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. When a Select List is challenged the High Court can either quash the Select List if it finds it invalid, or it can uphold the validity of the List, but instead of taking recourse to either of these two courses of action, F the Division Bench devised a third method of disposing of the case by sending back the select list to the Selection Committee. The High Court practically G abdicated its functions. It was the duty of High Court to decide the controversy as to whether the select list of 1991 was valid or not, and it was wholly unjustified and improper on its part to refuse to perform its function. !Paras 4 and 5) (189-G; 190-A) 187 H 188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R. A 2.1 A Select List can only be prepared for a particular year, and only those who are eligible in that particular year alone can be considered for ).. selection in the Select List. Even if the Select List is not prepared in that very year, it will relate back to that particular year. Therefore, clubbing is illegal. [Paras 12 and 14) 1191-G-H) B 2.2. In the instant case, a Select List had to be prepared for the year 1991. Hence, only those officers who were eligible for induction into the IFS in the year 1991 could have been considered in the Select List for the year 1991 (even if it is prepared subsequent to 1991). The Select List dated 12.9.1995 has clubbed together the vacancies for the period 1991-1995 which c was in violation of Regulation 5 of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1965. In the Select List of 12.9.1995 many persons who were not eligible for selection for the year 1991 have been included, while the appellant has been excluded. The clubbing done was clearly illegal and also any selection made in pursuance thereof. The impugned Select List dated 12.9.1995 is quashed. The State Government is directed to prepare a fresh D Select List for each year separately considering only those persons/officers who were eligible for selection in that particular year. [Paras 6, 13, 14 and 15) (190-C; 191-G-H; 192-B) Union of India and Ors. v. Vipinchandra Hira/al Shah, [1996) 6 SCC ...... E 721, relied on. + H.R. Kasturi Rangan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1998) 1 SCALE SP 11 and Nepal Singh Tanwar, etc. v. Union of India and Ors., (1998) 1 SCALE (SP) 7, referred to. F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6660 of2000. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 26.5.1999 of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu in LP.A. (SW) No. 222/1999. I-- Rajeev Sharma, Diwakar Sinha and Nihar Ranjan Mohapatra for the G Appellant. Shakeel Ahmed & Arna Das, Anis Suhrawardy, S. Mehndi Imam & Tabreez Ahmad, Indra Sawhney and Shreekant N. Terdal for the Respondents. '· ' The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ,._ H MARKANDEY KATJU, J. I. This appeal has been filed against the VIJA Y SINGH CHARAK v. U.0.1. [KA TJU, J.) 189 impugned judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court dated 26.5 .1999 in A LPA (SW) No. 222/99. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The facts of the case are that a Select List dated 28.3
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.