MANJEET SINGH UDC K PRAKASAM Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION :T SUBRAHMANYAM
LAWS(SC)-1990-3-25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on March 22,1990

MANJEET SINGH,UDC.,K.PRAKASAM Appellant
VERSUS
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,T.SUBRAHMANYAM Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

VIKAS PAREEK VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-12-125] [REFERRED TO]
FAIZULLAH PEER VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-1991-4-52] [REFERRED TO]
LANKA ANNAPURNA SREE VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2010-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN ROUT VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE [LAWS(ORI)-2003-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
MADHUMITA DAS VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2005-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
BUKHAREE AEZAZALEE MAKHADUMALEE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2010-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
VASANT KAMLESH RAMNIKLAL VS. GUJARAT STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(GJH)-2006-8-82] [REFERRED TO]
H.P.PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. Y.R.PATHAK [LAWS(HPH)-1997-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
NIBAS PRUSTY VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2009-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYABRATA SAHU VS. STATE ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-12-56] [REFERRED TO]
BALJINDER SINGH SRA VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-4-117] [REFERRED TO]
BALJINDER SINGH SRA VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-4-117] [REFERRED TO]
PRAFULLA KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF UP AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-4-362] [REFERRED TO]
JASVINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(SC)-2002-12-62] [REFERRED]
K H SIRAJ VS. HIGH COURT OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2006-5-79] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-3-199] [REFERRED TO]
SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH VS. HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL & ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2016-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH JAIN VS. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-1-214] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Ranganath Misra, J. - (1.)Petitioners are employees under the State Insurance Corporation, respondent No. 1. According to the notification. dated 22nd of April, 1977 issued in exercise of powers conferred by S. 97(1), (1, 2) (xxx), S. 2A and S. 17(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which came by way of supersession of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (Recruitment) Regulations, 1965, the post of Insurance Inspector/ Manager Grade II was treated partly as selection and partly as non-selection. There was no age limit for departmental candidates and two-thirds of the vacancies were to be filled by promotion and one-third by competitive examination under the Rules. By advertisement dated 6th August, 1983, applications were invited for filling up the one third vacancies by direct recruitment to the category of post of Insurance Inspector/ Manager Grade II. The petitioners in this application under Art. 32 of the Constitution responded to the said advertisement and were in due course declared as successful in the test. In consideration of the fact that a good number of vacancies were then existing and in anticipation of the position that more vacancies were about to occur, a select list was drawn up for the existing and future vacancies. In the said select list petitioners featured at Sr. Nos. 114, 116, 121, 159, 171, 172 and 188 respectively. The panel was notified and in accordance with the practice petitioners along with other successful candidates were individually intimated by respondent No. 2 on 1-9-1984.
(2.)As already indicated, the direct recruitment was on the basis of the examination and interview. The advertisement did not prescribe any pass marks in the interview though for the written examination 40% was prescribed. Selection was, however, made on the basis of 40% in the interview test and those who did not secure 40% in the interview Were not selected. Challenge was made by the unsuccessful candidates questioning their rejection by contending that in the absence of any prescription of pass marks for the interview test, there was no justification to apply the 40% basis. Writ petitions were also filed when the respondents instead of appointing people from the panel of successful candidates went on filling up existing vacancies out of the category of promotees. Such petitions were pending before the Calcutta, Madras and Andhra Pradesh High Courts when the Central Administrative Tribunals came to be set up. These were transferred to the respective Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunals and on being clubbed were disposed of by a common judgment dated 28th of April, 1989, by the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal held:
"We would direct in these cases that the respondents shall work out and estimate the vacancies available up to 20th June, 1986 accurately (we have used the word 'accurately' as an apprehension has been expressed that direct recruits are not getting their due since over 320 posts were filled up between May, 1986 and December, 1988 by promotees on ad hoc basis or otherwise). After such estimation, the respondents shall deduct therefrom 116 vacancies which have already been filled and make available the remaining vacancies to the applicants and others who took the examination on the basis of aggregate marks, i.e. total marks obtained in the written test and the oral interview. Such of the applicants in all the three cases before us and heard by us at Hyderabad, Madras and Calcutta, who come within the zone of selection in accordance with this procedure as directed by us would be entitled to appointment."

(3.)The writ petition is by the successful candidates whose names appear in the panel but who have not been given appointments. They have contended that the respondents (sic) were entitled to the issue of appointment orders to them inasmuch as vacancies exist and there was no indication that the life of the select list would expire either at the end of one year or on the expiry of the further extended period of six months and when there has been no fresh select list as yet.
;


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