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.