9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed to join on 06.06.1997. 4. A writ petition was filed by some unsuccessful candidates, which was marked as Civil Writ Petition No. 11116 of 1997, wherein 18 of the selected candidates were made parties. The entire selection process as well as the selection of the said respondents were questioned, inter alia, on the ground that their names were recommended by one or the other influential persons or they had otherwise access to the Civil Surgeon concerned. In the said writ petition, it was, inter alia, prayed : i) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the selection of Class IV employee in the civil hospital Nawanshahr vide selection list Annexure P/3 and further to order quashing the appointment of respondent No. 4 to 21 against the post (in class IV) and to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as Class IV employees in the civil hospital, Nawanshahr. 5. A Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment and order dated 10.11.2000 perused the records pertaining to the process of selection and the results thereof and was of the opinion that although no criteria whatsoever was fixed for evaluating the mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt wondered that even if one minute was spent on one candidate and if one more minute was required for another candidate to come in and go out, at least 2000 minutes would be required for interviewing 1000 candidates and, thus, there was no reason as to why only 2 dates had been fixed for interview; and even if the members of the Selection Board sat for 5 to 6 hours a day, they would not have been able to finish the interview of so many candidates, observing : This would bring the projected time which the Board wanted to spend on interview of one candidate to less than 30 seconds, which would include the time for calling in of a candidate, making him sit down, ask him questions and then requesting him to leave. 9. The High Court, therefore, set aside the selection made by the Board. The State did not prefer any appeal there against. One Jaswinder Lal preferred a special leave petition there against and this Court by an order dated 12.02.2001 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2115 of 2001, dismissed the said petition, opining : We have not got the slightest doubt in the greatest abuse of power by the officer concerned. The High Court is entirely correct i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [1985]1SCR216 . 15. The learned counsel relying on or on the basis of a judgment of this Court in Arun Tewari and Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh and Ors. AIR1997SC4310 would contend that in all cases, it is not necessary to follow all the procedures laid down in the rules. 16. It was not a case where the High Court, in our opinion, could have interfered with the order dated 23.04.2001 passed by the appellant herein. We have noticed hereinbefore the findings of the High Court arrived in Writ Petition No. 11116 of 1997 for the purpose of setting aside the entire selection process. It is true that in the said writ petition only 18 out of 31 selected candidates were made parties, but they were made parties because an additional ground was taken by the writ petitioners therein that their cases were recommended by some influential persons or they were otherwise known to the Civil Surgeon, Nawanshahr. The main prayer in the said writ petition, however, was that the entire selection process was bad in law. Once the High Court was of the opinion that the entire selection process was bad in law and the said order having been upheld by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents were aggrieved, they could have come before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Even a review petition at their instance was maintainable. Prior to issuance of letter of termination dated 23.04.2001, they questioned the order of termination only. Such order of termination cannot be said to be in any manner vitiated in law as the same had been issued pursuant to or in furtherance of a lawful judgment passed by the High Court and affirmed by this Court. It was a duty of the High Court to follow the decision of this Court. 20. In Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and Anr. AIR1997SC2477 , it was held : When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
