NAVIN CHANDRA TEWARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.
LAWS(UTN)-2013-12-45
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on December 24,2013

Navin Chandra Tewari Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Alok Singh, J. - (1.) ALL these writ petitions involve identical question of law, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all the petitions were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Uttarakhand issued one advertisement dated 23.12.2011 inviting the applications from all eligible for the post of Senior Branch Manager/Section Officer (Group I), Junior Branch Manager/Senior Assistant (Group II) and Clerk/Cashier (Group III). Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pant Nagar initiated the selection process and held a competitive examination. A selection list were prepared by the University along with waiting list. Select list and waiting list was forwarded to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Some of the selected candidates did not give their joining despite issuance of appointment letters to them. Therefore, undisputedly, two posts of Group I, thirty posts of Group II and forty six posts of Group III remained vacant. Registrar, Cooperative Societies sought permission from the State Government vide letter dated 10th May, 2013 to fill up the remaining vacant posts from the candidates mentioned in the waiting list. However, State Government vide letter dated 11th May, 2013 declined to grant permission to the Registrar to fill up the vacant post from the candidates of the waiting list and directed the Registrar to carry forward the vacancies for the next selection process.
(2.) HON 'ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another reported in : AIR 1998 SC 18 has held as under: "A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who become eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future. If the waiting list in one examination was to operate as an infinite stock for appointments, there is a danger that the State Government may resort to the device of not holding an examination for years together and pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required. The constitutional discipline requires that this Court should not permit such improper exercise of power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetrate waiting list for the candidates of one examination at the cost of entire set of fresh candidates either from the open or even from service."
(3.) HON 'ble Apex Court in the Case of Raj Rishi Mehra and others v. State of Punjab and another reported in : AIR 2013 SC 3580, in paragraph No. 15 has held as under and has also approved the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh (supra): "15. The question whether the candidates whose names are included in the waiting list are entitled to be appointed against the unfilled posts as of right is no longer res integra and must be answered in negative in view of the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri : 1992 Supp (3) SCC 84, Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat and others : 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591, State of Bihar v. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and others : (1994) 1 SCC 126, Prem Singh and others v. Haryana SEB and others : (1996) 4 SCC 319, Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and others : (1996) 1 SCC 283, Surinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another : (1997) 8 SCC 488, Madan Lal and others v. State of J and K and others : (1995) 3 SCC 486, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and others : (1998) 3 SCC 45, State of J and K and others v. Sanjeev Kumar and others : (2005) 4 SCC 148, State of U.P. and others v. Rajkumar Sharma and others : (2006) 3 SCC 330, Ram Avtar Patwari and others v. State of Haryana and others : 2007) 10 SCC 94 and Rakhi Ray and others v. High Court of Delhi and others : (2010) 2 SCC 637." In view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is settled position of law that candidates whose names are included in the waiting list have absolutely no legal right to be appointed against unfilled post and in some extreme exigency, the Government, as a matter of policy decision, may pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list.;


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