Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. Delson Davis P. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 7567 of 1999
Petitioner: Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited
Respondent: Delson Davis P. & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 7567 of 1999
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & RUMA PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 15, 2002
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Constitution
Articles 14, 16, 226 – Appointment – Post advertised – Only one vacancy – ‘R’ and ‘D’ selected as nos. 1 and 2 – ‘R’ given appointment – After sometime ‘R’ left – ‘D’ approached and appointed temporarily – Direction by court to appoint ‘D’ on permanent basis – Justification. Held that earlier selection process was over. If the post falls vacant then fresh steps were to be taken. Appeal allowed.
Held:
When once the selection process is complete and appointment had been made, that process comes to an end and if any vacancy arises on the appointee having joined the post leaves the same, it must be treated as a fresh vacancy and fresh steps in accordance with the appropriate rules should be taken. This view is fortified by the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Raghubir Chand Sharma & Anr. (JT 2001 (9) SC 266). Any temporary arrangement made during the interregnum will not entitle respondent no. 1 to claim for permanent employment. (Para 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. State of Punjab v. Raghubir Chand Sharma & Anr. (JT 2001 (9) SC 266) (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellant bank invited applications for the post of clerk-cum-cashier, data entry officer and peons vide notification published in the Express Daily dated 10.11.1994. So far as vacancy for the post of data entry officer is concerned, it is only one.
2. On completion of the selection process, the respondent no. 1 was included in the list as having secured second rank while one Mr. T.D. Rolly stood first. Mr. Rolly joined the service and he was appointed as data entry officer. After some time, he resigned from service as he got better placement in some other institution. The respondent no. 1, it appears, approached the bank and requested to appoint him in that vacancy. Though he was appointed temporarily, he was not given permanent employment. Under those circumstances, the respondent no. 1 approached the High Court for a direction that he should be appointed on permanent basis. The High Court examined the matter and found that when the previous incumbent, who had been selected, had left the post and vacancy being available, the appropriate course was to have appointed the respondent no. 1 and he had a right to be considered for the appointment.
3. We fail to understand the reasoning of the High Court in this regard. When once the selection process is complete and appointment had been made, that process comes to an end and if any vacancy arises on the appointee having joined the post leaves the same, it must be treated as a fresh vacancy and fresh steps in accordance with the appropriate rules should be taken. This view is fortified by the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Raghubir Chand Sharma & Anr. (JT 2001 (9) SC 266). Any temporary arrangement made during the interregnum will not entitle respondent no. 1 to claim for permanent employment. In that view of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1.
1. The appellant bank invited applications for the post of clerk-cum-cashier, data entry officer and peons vide notification published in the Express Daily dated 10.11.1994. So far as vacancy for the post of data entry officer is concerned, it is only one.
2. On completion of the selection process, the respondent no. 1 was included in the list as having secured second rank while one Mr. T.D. Rolly stood first. Mr. Rolly joined the service and he was appointed as data entry officer. After some time, he resigned from service as he got better placement in some other institution. The respondent no. 1, it appears, approached the bank and requested to appoint him in that vacancy. Though he was appointed temporarily, he was not given permanent employment. Under those circumstances, the respondent no. 1 approached the High Court for a direction that he should be appointed on permanent basis. The High Court examined the matter and found that when the previous incumbent, who had been selected, had left the post and vacancy being available, the appropriate course was to have appointed the respondent no. 1 and he had a right to be considered for the appointment.
3. We fail to understand the reasoning of the High Court in this regard. When once the selection process is complete and appointment had been made, that process comes to an end and if any vacancy arises on the appointee having joined the post leaves the same, it must be treated as a fresh vacancy and fresh steps in accordance with the appropriate rules should be taken. This view is fortified by the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Raghubir Chand Sharma & Anr. (JT 2001 (9) SC 266). Any temporary arrangement made during the interregnum will not entitle respondent no. 1 to claim for permanent employment. In that view of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1.
