G. Sudhir Raju v. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant

Order

The petitioner has filed this writ petition on 7-6-2000 to declare the action of the respondent in abandoning the recruitment to the post of Assistant Stores Keeper commenced vide internal circular No.PL/NER/ASK/91 dated 10-9-1991 pursuant to which a written test and interview were held on 1992 and thereafter resorting to recruitment directly from the open market the year 1992 without considering his candidature as arbitrary, illegal and consequently to direct the respondent to consider the petitioners case for appointment as Assistant Stores Keeper with effect 13-4-1992 or from 1996 with all consequential and attendant benefits. The petitioner joined in the respondent-Organization on 5-3-1987/5-9-1988 as Technician in Raw Material Handling Plant. While so, the respondent-Organization issued an internal circular No.PL/NER/ASK/91 dated 10-9-1991 notifying its intention to fill the posts of Assistant Stores Keeper in the Stores Department of the respondent-Organization. The petitioner alleges that written examination was conducted on 16-12-1991 and subsequently interview was held on 13-4- 1992 that he was successful in the written examination and also in the interview and was hoping to get favourable result and consequently appointment as Assistant Stores Keeper. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the process of appointment to the said post of Assistant Stores Keeper from among the internal candidates was abandoned. The petitioner contends that this action on the part of the respondent is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has also submitted a representation dated 21-10-1992 stating that only departmental candidates including himself and another have qualified in the written examination for which stiff competition was there that he had also done well in the interview, and that it was not proper on the part of the respondent to abandon the selection at that stage and preventing the internal candidates such as the petitioner who were hoping to secure the post of Assistant Stores Keeper from getting it. There was no response to his representation. The petitioner alleges that the respondent had resorted to open market recruitment in the year 1996 ignoring the claims of the persons like the petitioner who were appointed already in the services of the respondent. The petitioner also alleges that some people have approached the Civil Court and got favourable orders for recruitment to the post of Assistant Stores Keeper and that the same analogy should have been adopted by the respondent in this case also before resorting to open market recruitment. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made by the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has remained silent for 8 long years and that the relief sought by him is stale and hit by laches and that mere participation in the process of selection for the post of Assistant Store Keeper notified by the respondent vide circular dated 10- 9-1991 did not by itself create any right in favour of the petitioner to seek appointment, that during the process of selection pursuant to the said circular dated 10-9-1991, it came to the notice of the management of the respondent that there was surplus man power in the respondent Organization who were diploma holders in different branches of Engineering, Graduates in Arts and Commerce and it was felt appropriate to abandon the selections notified and to make effective use of the surplus man power earlier engaged in the construction work by posting them as Assistant Stores Keepers. Therefore, it was contended that the action of the management of the respondent in abandoning the selection is just and valid. They also denied that the respondent had resorted to open market recruitment in the year 1996 and contended that in the year 1995 a special recruitment drive was taken up in view of the directions of the Ministry to fill up backlog posts of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes, that 5 posts of Assistant Store Keepers, one for S.C. and 4 for S.T were notified vide notification no.5 of 1995 dated 28.6.1995, that in terms of the said notification, written test and interviews were held on 30- 11-1995 and that none of the aspiring candidates could qualify and that same was intimated to the Employment Exchange vide letter dated 8.10.1996. It is also stated that 6 out of 9 external candidates who aspired for the said post under notification no.5 dated 28.6.1995 filed O.S.No.1309 of 1992 on file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Visakhapatnam for a direction to get employment as Assistant Stores Keeper, that the Civil Court by its order dated 19.7.1994 in I.A.No.211 of 1994 in O.S.No.1309 of 1992 directed the respondent to keep 6 posts vacant and that subsequently the suit was decreed and that the decree holders in the said suit were offered appointments on 25-10-1995. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that two other external candidates filed Writ Petition No.844 of 1996 before this Court seeking appointment as Assistant Stores Keeper and that the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated

29.8.1997 directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners therein for appointment as Assistant Store Keepers, if vacant or as and when suitable vacancies arise in future and that the petitioners therein shall be subjected to the selection procedure, if any which is already in vogue, and not created specifically for the petitioners therein.

Heard Sri P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that a notification dated

10.9.1991 had been issued by the respondent notifying the posts of Assistant Store Keepers in the Stores Department of the respondent to be filled up from amongst internal candidates, that pursuant to the said notification written examination was held on 16-12-1991 and interview was held on 13-4-1992 and that the petitioner had performed well in both written examination and interview and was expecting appointment as Assistant Stores Keeper, and respondent had acted illegally in abandoning the process of selection to the post of Assistant Stores Keeper pursuant to the notification dated 10-9-1991. The petitioner contends that his representation dated 10-1-1992 pleading for completion of the selection process pursuant to the said notification has not been responded by the respondent and that the respondent has acted illegally. The cause of action to the petitioner to question the action of the respondent in not completing the process of selection to the post of Assistant Stores Keeper conducted pursuant to the circular dated 10.9.1991 accrued in the year 1992 when he was interviewed for the said post by the respondent after being successful in the written examination. Except giving representation dated 21.2.1992 respondent, the petitioner has not approached this Court for appropriate relief. He awaited till 7-6-2000 for filing the present writ petition. No reason is assigned by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as to why he could not approach this Court for the appropriate relief immediately within a reasonable period from 1992. The petitioner is thus guilty of laches and is not entitled for grant of any relief on that ground. Further, the reason for abandonment of the selection to the post of Assistant Stores Keeper pursuant to the circular dated 10.9.1991 was explained by the respondent in the counter stating that there was a situation of surplus man power at that time because of which a decision was taken to abandon the selection pursuant to the notification dated 10.9.1991 and engage the surplus man power by posting them as Assistant Stores Keepers. This reason assigned by the respondent cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. In fact it is to be held to be just and valid. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent had abandoned the selection to the post of Assistant Stores Keeper illegally and arbitrarily is rejected. Even otherwise, by mere participation in the process of selection to the post of Assistant Stores Keeper, the petitioner cannot claim that he should be appointed to the said post as a matter of right. In SHANKARSAN DASH v. UNION OF INDIA [1] the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held as follows : “… It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied”. It was further held by the Supreme Court that ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post and that unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies; the decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. In view of the above principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court, it has to be held that the petitioner even if he was successful in the written examination or interview, did not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed to the post of Assistant Stores Keeper when the respondent for valid reasons had abandoned the process of selection at that time. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merits and is dismissed. But in the circumstances, without costs. JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Kk/ 26-9-2012 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO W.P.No.9671 of 2000 26-9-2012 [1] AIR 1991 SC 1612