2009 (4) TMI 932 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether appointment of a handicapped person, indisputably, is de hors the advertisement? Whether all other districts the Selection Committee had prepared waitlist and a large number of appointments had been made therefrom were not specifically been denied?

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of recruitment rules regarding the establishment of a waiting list.
2. Validity of the High Court's direction to consider waitlisted candidates for appointment.
3. Compliance with the one-year panel life rule for appointments.
4. Allegations of discrepancies in the selection process and the existence of a waiting list.
5. Impact of earmarking a vacancy for a handicapped candidate on the appointment process.

Issue 1: Interpretation of recruitment rules regarding the establishment of a waiting list:
The case involved a recruitment advertisement for Telecom Technical Assistants, resulting in a select list and a waitlist. The appellants were on the waitlist and sought appointment following the non-joining of selected candidates. The High Court initially allowed the writ petition, emphasizing the absence of a provision for a waitlist in the rules. However, the appellate court modified the order to direct the consideration of waitlisted candidates for the unfilled vacancies. The appellant argued against the validity of the High Court's direction based on the absence of a statutory provision for a waitlist.

Issue 2: Validity of the High Court's direction to consider waitlisted candidates for appointment:
The High Court's direction to consider waitlisted candidates for appointment was based on the failure of selected candidates to join. The appellate court modified the order to specify that the appellants should fill the vacancies by offering appointments to waitlisted candidates within a stipulated time frame. The appellant contested this direction, highlighting the lack of a statutory provision for a waitlist and the panel's one-year validity period.

Issue 3: Compliance with the one-year panel life rule for appointments:
The appellant argued that the High Court's direction to consider waitlisted candidates was impermissible due to the panel's one-year validity period. However, the court noted that the select list was approved in August 2003, and the representations were made within one year, satisfying the requirement. The appellant's failure to raise this issue earlier prevented a detailed examination. The court referenced precedents to support the conclusion that the panel's life and the representations' timing aligned in this case.

Issue 4: Allegations of discrepancies in the selection process and the existence of a waiting list:
The respondents alleged discrepancies in the selection process, claiming that waitlisted candidates were appointed in other districts. The appellant denied the existence of a waiting list in Pilibhit. The court observed that the specific allegations regarding the preparation of waitlists in other districts were not adequately denied, indicating potential inconsistencies in the selection process across different locations.

Issue 5: Impact of earmarking a vacancy for a handicapped candidate on the appointment process:
The appellant raised concerns about complying with the High Court's direction due to one vacancy being reserved for a handicapped candidate, a decision made in 2003. This appointment was outside the advertisement's scope. The court acknowledged this issue but ultimately found no error in the judgments, emphasizing the need for compliance with the High Court's direction regarding the unfilled vacancies.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's modified order to consider waitlisted candidates for appointment within a specified timeframe. The court addressed various legal aspects, including the interpretation of recruitment rules, the panel life rule, discrepancies in the selection process, and the impact of earmarking vacancies for specific categories.