- (1.) This is an application whereby the petitioner seeks cancellation of the memo dated 7th August, 2009 in so far as the candidates from the existing panels are to be appointed and memo dated 9th October, 2009.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that a panel was prepared on 13th February, 2007. The life of the panel as per memo dated 25th January, 2006 was initially for a period of two years subject to revalidation on yearly basis. The panel expired on 13th February, 2009 and the revalidation sought to be effected is by memo dated 9th October, 2009, i.e., after the expiry of the said panel. Such revalidation of the panel by memo dated 9th October, 2009 is bad and liable to be set aside. By order dated 7th August, 2009 additional centres and posts have been created. The petitioner is not against creation of such centres and posts, but to fill the said posts from candidates in the existing panels is not justified as at the time the panel was created the posts did not exist and creation of posts after approval of panel will require initiation of a fresh selection process to fill the posts created. Candidates cannot be appointed from the existing panels as the said candidates have not applied for the posts created subsequently. For the said proposition reliance is placed on 1997 (8) SCC 488. As the panel has expired on 13th February, 2009 its validity cannot be extended thereafter. Therefore, the memos dated 9th October, 2009 and 7th August, 2009 in so far as it directs filling up of newly created posts from the existing panel be cancelled. Counsel for the respondent-authorities questions the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the memos dated 9th October, 2009 and 7th August, 2009, in so far as it directs filling up of newly created posts from the existing panel on the ground that no right of the Sabhapati has been affected, therefore, he has no legal right to file the instant application. The panel was prepared on 13th February, 2007 and the life of such panel was to expire on 12th February, 2009. On 9th February, 2009, at a meeting of the Selection Committee it was resolved to revalidate the panel by a year. Out of the seven members of the Selection Committee three were present. Therefore, the quorum as per the 2006 memorandum was satisfied and the meeting cannot be faulted.
(3.) The said proposal was forwarded to the concerned department and after due consideration thereof certain particulars were called for. The said particulars were forwarded without delay and on the basis of the said information the panel was revalidated. Therefore, the memo dated 9th October, 2009 is justified and cannot be set aside. As regards the direction contained in the memo dated 7th August, 2009 regarding filling up posts from the existing panel such direction was incorporated in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court of India on 22nd April, 2009 in W.P (C) No.196 of 2001. Therefore, it is as per the Supreme Court 's directives that such a clause has been inserted. In fact, some appointments have been made after revalidation of panel and prior to order dated 24th December, 2009. Counsel for the petitioner-in-reply submits that the decision to appoint on revalidation of panel though taken and appointment letters issued the candidates appointed have not joined. As the petitioner is deeply concerned with the issues in this writ petition and as held in 2006 (3) CHN 655 and AIR 2004 SCW 731, this application is maintainable. Therefore, orders be passed.;