Abani Mahato Vs. Kanchan K. Sinha & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 2694-2695 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8853-8854 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8853-8854 of 1999)
Petitioner: Abani Mahato
Respondent: Kanchan K. Sinha & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 2694-2695 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8853-8854 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8853-8854 of 1999)
Judges: B.N. KIRPAL & SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 17, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Constitution
Articles 226,136 – Panel for Assistant Teachers – Candidate at Sl. No. 2 filing writ without making candidate at Sl. No. 1 as party – Writ allowed – Appeal by selectee No. 1 dismissed as name not forwarded by Employment Exchange – Earlier direction of High Court to consider him for appointment – Said judgment final. Held that judgments of courts below are quashed and appeal allowed. Selectee, however, to get pay from date of joining duties.
(Para 4)
Cases Reffered:
1. Kishore K. Pati v. District Inspector of Schools, Midnapore & Ors. (C.A. No. 5 of 2000)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. The appellant as well as the respondent no. 1 had appeared for an interview for selection to the post of Assistant Teacher. Panel was prepared in which the appellant was placed at Sl. No. 1 and respondent no. 1 who is the son of the Head Master was placed at Sl.No. 2. The said son then filed a writ petition without impleading the appellant as a party and the writ petition was allowed. Communication of the same was sent to the appellant herein by the Counsel for respondent no. 1 and in the letter the appellant was informed that the panel which had been prepared by the Selection Committee pursuant to the interview held on 21st August, 1997 had been quashed on the ground that it was not prepared on that day but was prepared on a subsequent date.
3. The appellant herein then filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the name of the appellant had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the legal decision of this Court in Kishore K. Pati v. District Inspector of Schools, Midnapore & Ors. (C.A. No. 5 of 2000) dated 10th January, 2000 in which it has been held that it was not necessary that the name should have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Be that as it may, what is im-portant in the present case is, that the appellant herein had been directed by the High Court in an earlier proceeding to be considered for appointment and be interviewed. That judg-ment of the High Court dt. 7.8.1997 was not challenged and had become final. This being so, the selection which was made should not be quashed. We allow these appeals, set aside the decision of the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court and direct the respondents to take further proceed-ings pursuant to the panel which had been constituted by the Selection Committee. It is further made clear that the salary to the appellant will be paid only from the day he joins duty pursuant to the orders passed in his favour. Formality be completed within two months. No costs.
1. Special leave granted.
2. The appellant as well as the respondent no. 1 had appeared for an interview for selection to the post of Assistant Teacher. Panel was prepared in which the appellant was placed at Sl. No. 1 and respondent no. 1 who is the son of the Head Master was placed at Sl.No. 2. The said son then filed a writ petition without impleading the appellant as a party and the writ petition was allowed. Communication of the same was sent to the appellant herein by the Counsel for respondent no. 1 and in the letter the appellant was informed that the panel which had been prepared by the Selection Committee pursuant to the interview held on 21st August, 1997 had been quashed on the ground that it was not prepared on that day but was prepared on a subsequent date.
3. The appellant herein then filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the name of the appellant had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the legal decision of this Court in Kishore K. Pati v. District Inspector of Schools, Midnapore & Ors. (C.A. No. 5 of 2000) dated 10th January, 2000 in which it has been held that it was not necessary that the name should have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Be that as it may, what is im-portant in the present case is, that the appellant herein had been directed by the High Court in an earlier proceeding to be considered for appointment and be interviewed. That judg-ment of the High Court dt. 7.8.1997 was not challenged and had become final. This being so, the selection which was made should not be quashed. We allow these appeals, set aside the decision of the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court and direct the respondents to take further proceed-ings pursuant to the panel which had been constituted by the Selection Committee. It is further made clear that the salary to the appellant will be paid only from the day he joins duty pursuant to the orders passed in his favour. Formality be completed within two months. No costs.
