2006 (9) TMI 569 - SC - Indian Laws

Advertisement for appointment of 225 posts of Live Stock Assistants in the Animal Husbandry Department - selection process completed - appointment letter sent to Respondent asked to join the post within fifteen days - failed to join - again requested Director to issue an appointment letter - State in its Counter Affidavit categorically raised a contention that the panel remained valid only for one year - HELD THAT - It may or may not be that Respondent herein had actually received his appointment letter. It was, however, expected that he would make enquiries thereabout; particularly when on his own showing those who were below him in the selection list had already been permitted to join. Admittedly, he came to know thereabout in 1994. He allegedly filed a representation and although no reply thereto was given, he did not take any step soon thereafter. He filed another representation only in 1995. He filed the writ petition after a long period i.e. in 2001 when his purported representation filed in the year 1999 was rejected. In the aforementioned situation, in our opinion, he did not have any legal right to be appointed. Life of a panel, it is well known, remains valid for a year. Once it lapses, unless an appropriate order is issued by the State, no appointment can be made out of the said panel. It may be true that the appointment letter was sent by ordinary post; but even in relation thereto a statutory presumption arises. It is also well known that postal delay by itself may not be a ground to take a sympathetic view In Maruti Udyod Ltd. v. Ram Lal and Others 2005 (1) TMI 671 - SUPREME COURT . Thus, in our opinion, the High Court should not have allowed Respondent herein to join his services only on the basis of sympathy. It is now also well settled that in absence of any legal right, the Court should not issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus on the basis of sympathy. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the High Court committed a manifest error in allowing the writ petition of Respondent. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. However, no recovery shall be made for the period he has actually worked.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of appointment panel and legal right to appointment.
2. Consideration of appointment based on sympathy.
3. Legal principles governing appointment process and statutory provisions.

Issue 1: Validity of appointment panel and legal right to appointment
The case involved the appointment of Live Stock Assistants in the Animal Husbandry Department based on an advertisement by the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board. The respondent was recommended for appointment but failed to join despite receiving an appointment letter. The respondent made repeated requests for an appointment letter over the years, leading to a writ petition in the High Court. The State contended that the panel remained valid for only one year, and the respondent's representations were rejected. The High Court allowed the petition, directing the respondent's appointment, which was later challenged in the Supreme Court.

Issue 2: Consideration of appointment based on sympathy
The High Court allowed the respondent to join his services based on sympathy, considering the vacancies available and the respondent's circumstances. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that sympathy cannot be the basis for granting appointments or issuing writs, especially in the absence of a legal right. The Court cited various legal precedents to highlight that sympathy should not override statutory provisions or established legal principles in matters of appointment and recruitment.

Issue 3: Legal principles governing appointment process and statutory provisions
The Supreme Court reiterated the legal position that the life of a panel for appointments remains valid for a year, as established in previous judgments. The Court emphasized that even waitlisted candidates must be considered within the prescribed period and in accordance with the terms of the advertisement. Additionally, the Court highlighted that postal delays or personal circumstances cannot be grounds for sympathetic considerations in matters of appointment. The judgment emphasized that legal rights and statutory provisions should prevail over sympathy when issuing writs or orders related to appointments.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision to allow the respondent's appointment based on sympathy, emphasizing the importance of legal rights, statutory provisions, and established principles in matters of appointments and recruitment. The appeal was allowed, and no recovery was ordered for the period the respondent had worked.