High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 3055/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T. VAIPHEI JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Legal Reasoning
1. Both these writ petitions involving virtually a common question of fa cts and of laws were heard together, and are now being disposed of by this commo n judgment. For simplification, I will first refer to the facts of WP(C) No. 305 5 of 2006, decide the same and thereafter, in so far as possible, dispose of the second writ petition in accordance therewith. 2. In WP(C) No. 3055 of 2006, the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Cast e and passed High School Leaving Certificate Examination in the year 1998 and ha d also completed Trade Test in the trade of Electrician, applied for the post of Technician under the Scheduled Caste category in response to the advertisement dated 4-6-2003 appearing in local daily, (cid:28)Dainik Sonar Cachar (cid:29). According to the petitioner, after preliminary scrutiny, he was found provisionally eligible for the written test to be held subsequently, In the written test, he was declared successful on 10-8-2003. After the practical test as well as the interview held on 18-9-2003, he was provisionally selected for the lone post of Technician unde r the SC category. As he was never issued the appointment order he is filing thi s writ petition for appropriate directions. The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent authorities, however, makes an interesting reading. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner could not be given the appointment as the re was no vacant post to accommodate him: the two posts of Technician were diver ted from Doordarshan Kendriya (DDK), Silchar to DDK, Bhubaneshwar under redeploy ment policy on the direction of the Director-General, Doordarshan, New Delhi. Mo reover, according to the answering respondents, the selection procedure did not conform to the formalities such as the absence of approval from the Screening Co mmittee constituted by the Director-General of Doordarshan vide his order dated 5-5-2004. It is therefore, contended by the answering respondents that no right of the petitioner has been violated by not appointing him to the post of Technic ian when his selection process was done without the approval of the competent au thority. These are the justification made by the respondent authorities in not a cting upon the select list in question.
Legal Reasoning
3. The submission of Mr. N. Dhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, i s that the respondents do not deny the fact that the petitioner was selected for the post of Technician by the Selection Committee, and once the petitioner has been selected on merit by the Selection Committee, he could not be denied of the appointment on the pretext that the post has been filled up by someone else or the post has been transferred elsewhere provided such transfer took place after the selection. It is contended by Mr. N. Dhar, the learned counsel for the petit ioner, that it is true that mere selection of a candidate does not automatically entitle the candidate to appointment, yet appointment cannot be denied to him e ither unless the exigencies of service or the interest of public service do not require the filling up of the post, which is not the case here. He further submi ts that after subjecting the petitioner to undergo the gruelling process of writ ten test, practical test and interview, the respondents are now estopped from ch anging their stance on the pretext of waiting for approval from the Chief Engine er. To bolster his contentions, he relies on the decisions of the Apex Court in Secy. AP Public Service commission v. B. Swapna, (2005) 4 SCC 154 and N.T. Devin Katti and others. V. Karnataka Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC 157. Mr. N. Borah, the learned CGSC appearing for the respondent authorities, however, s upports the impugned decision of the respondent authorities and submits that whe n the selection process was conducted by the Station Director, Doordarshan, Silc har (respondent 7) without the prior approval of the Director-General of Doordar shan (respondent 4), the selection of the petitioner is non-est and cannot be ac ted upon. He further submits that empanelment in the select list does not confer upon the petitioner the right to be appointed, more so, when the selection itse lf is without authority of law. He, therefore, strenuously urges this court to d ismiss the writ petition. He draws support from the decisions of this Court in H em Chandra Barthakur v. State of Assam and ors, 2000 (1) GLT 310. 4. As the mainstay of the respondent authorities in not appointing the peti tioner to the post in question is the want of approval on the part of the respon dent No. 4 for filling up the said post, I have examined the additional document s produced by the learned CGSC at the time of hearing. The General Orders dated 12-5-2004 issued by the Prashar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India), Dir ectorate-General, All India Radio is revealing. It is stated therein that as per the Government instructions issued by the Department of Personnel & Training OM No. 2/8/2001-PIC, dated 16-5-01 & 18-6-02, direct recruitment of any post is to be made with the approval of the Screening Committee constituted for the purpos e in the respective Ministries. The General Orders also specifically mentioned D oordarshan Stations/Kendra as one of the units making direct recruitment of Tech nicians without getting any approval. In the light of this General Orders, the s tance taken by the respondents in this behalf is now beyond the pale of controve rsy. Obviously, the recruitment in question resulting in the select list includi ng the name of the petitioner is an ultra vires action, and is, therefore, a nul lity. The respondent authorities are justified in refusing to appoint the petiti oner on the basis of the select list prepared without the approval of the compet ent authority. Sympathy cannot be a ground for granting relief. The petitioner i s, therefore, not entitled to the relief claimed. 5. Coming now to WP(C) No. 1753 of 2006, the petitioner in this case belong s to Scheduled Tribes and applied for the post of Technician against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribes in terms of the same advertisement dated 3-6-2003 . He was also selected for the post in question by the Selection Committee, but he was never appointed. This prompted him to file this writ petition. As in the earlier case, the recruitment process for the post in question was initiated and completed with the prior approval of the competent authority. This is in contra vention of the General Orders dated 5-5-2004. Consequently, the select list is i llegal and cannot be acted upon. The respondent authorities are well within thei r right to deny appointment to the petitioner on the basis of the select list pr epared ultra vires the General Orders. The petitioner has no legitimate grievanc e to make over the refusal of the respondent authorities to appoint him to the p ost of Technician. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, both the writ petitions sans me 6. rit are liable to be dismissed, which I hereby do. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their respective cos ts.