Sri Sanjoy Bhattacharjee Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No.6175 of 1997
(CC-2264/97)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.7.1996 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta in O.A.No. 879 of 1993)
(CC-2264/97)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.7.1996 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta in O.A.No. 879 of 1993)
Petitioner: Sri Sanjoy Bhattacharjee
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No.6175 of 1997
(CC-2264/97)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.7.1996 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta in O.A.No. 879 of 1993)
(CC-2264/97)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.7.1996 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta in O.A.No. 879 of 1993)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 10, 1997
Appearances:
Sarla Chandra and Pradeep Mukherjee, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Recruitment – Waiting list – Held that appellant has not got any vested right to any appointment merely because the petitioner has been put in waiting list of recruitment – Petitioner has no right to seek directions – Direction sought for not filling up subsequent vacancies cannot be granted – No interference.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. This special leave petition has been filed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, made on July 8, 1996 made in O.A. No.879/93.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner, having acquired Diploma in Engineering, had applied for and stood selected as Technician. The vacancies notified were 480. His ranking on merit is 779. Since he was not appointed to the post, he filed the O.A. in the Tribunal. It was contended that while he was looking forward to his appointment in accordance with the selection, instead of making the appointment the authorities issued notification for fresh recruitment, thus, defeating the right of the petitioner and others similarly situated. Therefore, direction to the respondent-authorities to appoint him, as per his ranking in the select list for the year 1989 was sought. Stay of fresh recruitment till the said list got exhausted, was also sought. The Tribunal has dismissed the petition holding that mere putting a candidate in the select list does not confer on him any right to appointment. Selection was made only for filling up 480 vacancies; after the absorption thereof, selection has to be made for the subsequent vacancies from the open market and, therefore, directions sought could not be given. We find that the reasons given by the Tribunal are well justified. Merely because the petitioner has been put in the waiting list, he does not get any vested right to an appointment. It is not his case that any one below his ranking in the waiting list has been appointed which could give him cause for grievance. Thus, he cannot seek any direction for his appointment.
4. For subsequent vacancies, every one in the open market is entitled to apply for consideration of his/her claim on merit in accordance with law and it would be consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, direction sought for not to fill up the vacancies having arisen subsequently until the candidates in the waiting list are exhausted, cannot be granted. The Tribunal rightly refused to grant any such direction.
5. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
1. Delay condoned.
2. This special leave petition has been filed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, made on July 8, 1996 made in O.A. No.879/93.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner, having acquired Diploma in Engineering, had applied for and stood selected as Technician. The vacancies notified were 480. His ranking on merit is 779. Since he was not appointed to the post, he filed the O.A. in the Tribunal. It was contended that while he was looking forward to his appointment in accordance with the selection, instead of making the appointment the authorities issued notification for fresh recruitment, thus, defeating the right of the petitioner and others similarly situated. Therefore, direction to the respondent-authorities to appoint him, as per his ranking in the select list for the year 1989 was sought. Stay of fresh recruitment till the said list got exhausted, was also sought. The Tribunal has dismissed the petition holding that mere putting a candidate in the select list does not confer on him any right to appointment. Selection was made only for filling up 480 vacancies; after the absorption thereof, selection has to be made for the subsequent vacancies from the open market and, therefore, directions sought could not be given. We find that the reasons given by the Tribunal are well justified. Merely because the petitioner has been put in the waiting list, he does not get any vested right to an appointment. It is not his case that any one below his ranking in the waiting list has been appointed which could give him cause for grievance. Thus, he cannot seek any direction for his appointment.
4. For subsequent vacancies, every one in the open market is entitled to apply for consideration of his/her claim on merit in accordance with law and it would be consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, direction sought for not to fill up the vacancies having arisen subsequently until the candidates in the waiting list are exhausted, cannot be granted. The Tribunal rightly refused to grant any such direction.
5. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
