9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Dak Sewak". On 18.9.1997 a requisition was made to the local Employment Exchange. It was stipulated that preference would be given to ST/SC candidates. Pursuant to the advertisement the Employment Exchange sponsored a list of 40 candidates including the 4th respondent herein Sri Chittaranjan Kar. A corrigendum was issued on 19.8.1998 requiring public Notification having wider publicity along with the requisition to be made to the Employment Exchange. This corrigendum was issued in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others 1996(6) SCC 216. On 9.9.1998, the public Notification was issued inviting applications from intending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eligible candidate amongst the applicants who applied pursuant to the requisition made to the Employment Exchange. Aggrieved thereby, the present appellant challenged the selection of 4th respondent by filing O.A.606/98 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, praying inter alia for quashing the selection process and directing the Department to consider the petitioner's application along with others on merits. The learned Tribunal passed an interim order that any appointment made would be subject to the final result of the O.A. Pursuant to the aforesaid interim order, the department issued a letter of appointment in favour of respondent No.4 on 15.1.1999, with a rider that appointment was subject to the final result of O.A. Thereaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly candidate remained to be considered was the 4th Respondent. On this reasoning, the Tribunal set aside the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent. We fully subscribe to the views of the Tribunal. In compliance of the direction of the Tribunal the appointment of the 4th respondent was terminated on 3.5.2000. A fresh selection was held on 15.5.2000 in which the total number of 13 candidates which included the application made pursuant to the sponsored list prepared by the Employment Exchange including that of 4th respondent and the applications made in pursuance of the public notification dated 9.9.98 were considered. In that selection the present appellant, Arun Kumar Nayak, was selected and the 4th respondent was not selected. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed it aside by observing that it was distinguishable on the basis of special facts of that case. In Visweshwara Rao (supra) a three Judge Bench of this Court after considering Hargopal (supra) held in paragraph 6 as under:- "Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that contention of the respondents is more acceptable which would be consistent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. It is common knowledge that many a candidate is unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sider all the candidates who have applied. This view was taken to afford equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates in the matter of employment. The rationale behind such direction is also consistent with the sound public policy that wider the opportunity of the notice of vacancy by wider publication in the newspapers, radio, television and employment news bulletin, the better candidates with better qualifications are attracted, so that adequate choices are made available and the best candidates would be selected and appointed to subserve the public interest better. In Arun Tewari Vs. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh (1998) 2 SCC 332, where to fill about 7000 posts of Assistant Teachers under a time-bound scheme (Operation Blackboard), st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in Arun Tewari (supra) is based on the facts of that case, namely a time bound scheme and exigency of service. No law has been laid down thereunder. But in the case of Visweshwara Rao (supra) a three Judge Bench of this Court has laid down the law and that is still holding the field. There is yet another reason for which the order of the High Court, cannot be sustained. In the Notification dated 9.9.98 the applications were invited from the intending candidates belonging to ST community for the posts. It was also stipulated in the advertisement that if a minimum of three eligible candidates belonging to the ST community do not offer their candidature, the vacancy in question will be treated as unreserved and offered to the candidates bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
