UNION OF INDIA Vs. B VALLUVAN
LAWS(SC)-2006-10-66
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 19,2006

UNION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
B. VALLUVAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The Department of Personnel and Training, Andaman & Nicobar Administration (Administration) issued a circular letter, stating : "As you may be aware, as per the instructions of the Government of India, whereas validity of panel prepared against promotion quota is generally limited to one year, there is no fixed life of the panel against direct recruitment post. According to the Govt. of India's instructions therefore 3 panel prepared for direct recruitment should not be unduly inflated and should take care of immediate vacancies and those which are likely to occur in the near future. A maximum of ten percent additional persons can be kept on the panel against the existing vacancies at the time of preparation pf panel or vacancies likely to occur in the near future. Such a provision has been kept so that government can obtain the services of better qualified persons if they become available in due course of time. It has however been observed that these instructions of the Government of India are not even followed by all the Departments of this Administration while preparing panel for direct recruitment as well as for promotion. It is, therefore, brought to the notice of all the Departments that in future panel for promotion as well as for direct recruitment against various categories of posts should be prepared strictly in accordance with the instructions of the Govt. of India issued from time to time."
(3.) Three vacancies for the post of Pharmacist were notified in the year 1999. Applications were invited from the eligible candidates. In the advertisement issued therefor, it was categorically stated : "EMPLOYMENT NEWS Applications are invited from the eligible local candidates for the post of Pharmacist Under the A & N Health Department, Port Blair a) No. of vacancies :- 3 (three)" The 1st Respondent together with others, pursuant to or in furtherance of the said advertisement filed application. Interviews therefor were held in 1999. A select list of three candidates was prepared on the basis of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee on 27.5.1999. The said three persons accepted the offer and joined services. The Selection Committee, however, made a list of 19 candidates for future appointments occurring if any, in the said year. The said select list, according to Appellant, was prepared in violation of the purported statutory instructions dated 26.6.1992. All the three vacancies in the post of Pharmacist having been filled up, the said panel was directed to be cancelled by an order dated 7.12.1999. Several candidates purported to be aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, inter alia, contending that as the panel was drawn for future vacancies, they were entitled to be appointed against the vacancies occurring thereafter. It was furthermore contended that as several new posts were likely to be created and/or likely to fall vacant in the near future, they should be directed to be appointed in such vacancies. During pendency of the said application, another advertisement was issued on 17.5.2000 for filling up of one vacancy, which occurred in the year 2000. Interview was also held on 26.6.2000 and the said vacancy had also been filled up. The said fact was brought on record by Appellants herein. By an order dated 13.9.2002, the Tribunal rejected the said Original Application, inter alia, opining : ".....In the present case, however only 3 candidates had figured in the select list for immediate appointment and the panel of candidates in the waiting list had been cancelled on the ground that one of the candidates in that panel was not qualified and that the preparation of the panel was not in accordance with the Government of India/A&N Administration instructions.";


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