ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ADMINISTRATION Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LAWS(PAT)-2002-12-78
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on December 13,2002

Assistant Commissioner Administration Appellant
VERSUS
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE three contesting respondents, Vijay Kumar, Animesh Kumar Mehta and Smt. Punam were teachers who had applied for the post of Primary teachers to the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. A selection panel had been prepared by the respondent -the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya on 12.3.1997. These three respondents were empanelled amongst 46 candidates and they were placed at serial no. 13, 22 and 23. They had applied initially to the post of primary teachers against an advertisement of 1996 after having faced an examination and selection so as to be empanelled amongst 46 candidates. All the candidates except these applicants were appointed. They filed a claim petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal on allegation of hostile discrimination. The Tribunal examined the matter and has observed that the selection process by the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya indeed was very circuitious. This aspect is sufficiently recorded in paragraph 3 of the order of the Tribunal. It is also on record that there were no candidate available from an earlier list of selected candidates. The only defence which was taken before the Tribunal was that the continuity of the panel which has been so guaranteed by the management of the Kendriya Vidyalaya, stood recalled. This is a circular dated 10.3.1988. So between the circular and an advertisement of 1996 the Rules of selection or the criteria had been set and the selections in the past were made on this basis. It is accepted that the life of the panel is unlimited till the candidates empanelled have been exhausted. This was a stipulated understanding between the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya and the persons who had been selected. This aspect is mentioned on record. Subsequently, the Kendriya Vidyalaya changed its views and issued a clarificatory circular dated 17.6.1999 (Annexure -B). This circular in paragraph 4 mentions that "it has now been decided to withdraw the aforesaid letter dated 10.3.1988 with immediate effect ........" On this a defence was taken before the Tribunal that the life of the panel has exhausted itself. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the circular at best would be applicable from the date when it was issued. This Court would go further. This circular will be applicable on the date when it is made public. The Board of Governors of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan may take a policy decision but this policy would be applicable as its best from the date of decision. The Board of Governors is not the legislature. The clarificatory circular dated 17.6.1999 also mentions that "it is clarified that cases relating to persons who have already been appointed on the basis of the said circular dated 10.3.1988 will not be disturbed. However, all the unutilised select panels prepared in the past will cease to be operative."
(2.)IF the intention of the clarification is that the circular will have retrospective effect then the sentence as it is contained in circular to the effect the unutilised select panel prepared in the past will cease to be operative cannot have retrospective operation but from the date when the clarificatory circular was issued i.e. 17.6.1999. Otherwise, it will breed arbitrariness and discrimination. The Board of Governors may issue a circular and this may be within their right. But it may not be forgotten that the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is only a corporate body registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860. Any decision which it takes will be as from the date when it has taken and not retrospective.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal has committed no error that the contesting respondents who had found their positions in the panel of 46. candidates as serial no. 13, 22 and 23 be considered for appointment. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

(3.)THE petition is mis -conceived.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.