1996 (4) TMI 121 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the High Court was justified in issuing the mandamus to the appellant to make recruitment of the Writ Petitioners? Held that - We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that such appointments by the Appointing Authority have been made contrary to the provisions of the Statutory Rules for some unknown reason and we deprecate the practice adopted by the Appointing Authority in making such appointments contrary to the Statutory Rules. But at the same time it is difficult for us to sustain the direction given by the High Court since, admittedly, the life of the select list prepared on 4-4-1987 had expired long since and the respondents who claim their rights to be appointed on the basis of such list did not have a subsisting right on the date they approached the High Court. We may not be understood to imply that the High Court must issue such direction, if the writ petition was filed before the expiry of the period of one year and the same was disposed of after the expiry of the statutory period. In view of the aforesaid conclusion of ours it is not necessary to deal with the question whether the stand of the State Government that there existed one vacancy in the year 1987 is correct or not. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to direction of High Court in recruitment matter after expiry of select list.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two cases challenging directions of the Allahabad High Court in recruitment matters after the expiry of select lists. The question of law in both cases is whether the High Court was justified in issuing a mandamus to the appellant for recruitment of respondents who were in the Select List of 1987 after the list had expired. The recruitment/selection process is governed by the Subordinate Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985. The Appointing Authority determines vacancies, invites applications, and prepares a merit list. The High Court, based on earlier decisions, held that select lists do not expire after one year and directed appointments. The appellant contended that the High Court erred in law and the vacancy position was correctly stated by the State Government.

The respondents alleged that the Appointing Authority did not fill vacancies despite the select list of 1987, leading to mandamus requests. The appellant argued that the select list became inoperative after one year and no vacancies existed as claimed. The High Court, without focusing on the Statutory Rules, directed appointments based on vacancies occurring after the select list expiry. The appellant challenged this direction, citing Rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules which states that select lists are valid for one year. The High Court's reliance on past appointments beyond one year was contested by the appellant.

The Supreme Court addressed technical objections raised by the respondents, including delay and availability of appeal to the Division Bench. The Court condoned the delay, considering the merits of the case. The Court also clarified that the availability of an appeal to the Division Bench does not restrict invoking jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court then delved into the merits of the case, emphasizing Rule 26 and the expiration of select lists after one year. The Court highlighted that mandamus can only be issued when a legal right subsists, which was not the case after the select list expiry. The Court disapproved of appointments made contrary to Statutory Rules and set aside the High Court's directions, dismissing the Writ Petitions without costs.