Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2014 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1294 - SC - Indian LawsValidity of sections made in respect of the post, namely, Medical Laboratory Technician (MLT) - all appointees not impleaded - procedure adopted for selection was vitiated as the candidates were selected only by interview without holding any written test though the past practice was to conduct an examination - HELD THAT:- In the case at hand neither any rule nor Regulation was challenged. In fact, we have been apprised that at the time of selection and appointment there was no rule or Regulation. A procedure used to be adopted by the administrative instructions. That apart, it was not a large body of appointees but only 182 appointees. Quite apart from that the persons who were impleaded, were not treated to be in the representative capacity. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to some authorities. In KU. RASHMI MISHRA VERSUS MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMISSION & ORS. [2006 (10) TMI 485 - SUPREME COURT], after referring to Prabodh Verma [[1984 (7) TMI 397 - SUPREME COURT]] and Indu Shekhar Singh [2006 (4) TMI 565 - SUPREME COURT], the Court took note of the fact that when no steps had been taken in terms of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure or the principles analogous thereto all the seventeen selected candidates were necessary parties in the writ petition. It was further observed that the number of selected candidates was not many and there was no difficulty for the Appellant to implead them as parties in the proceeding. Ultimately, the Court held that when all the selected candidates were not impleaded as parties to the writ petition, no relief could be granted to the Appellant therein. In Tridip Kumar Dingal and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. [2008 (11) TMI 718 - SUPREME COURT], this Court approved the view expressed by the tribunal which had opined that for absence of selected and appointed candidates and without affording an opportunity of hearing to them, the selection could not be set aside. Thus, in such a case when all the appointees were not impleaded, the writ petition was defective and hence, no relief could have been granted to the writ Petitioners. When the Respondents had appeared in the interview knowing fully well the process, they could not have resiled later on or taken a somersault saying that the procedure as adopted by the department was vitiated - HELD THAT:- It is apt to refer to the principle stated in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors. [1986 (3) TMI 329 - SUPREME COURT], in the said case a three-Judge Bench, taking note of the fact that the Petitioner in the writ petition had appeared for the examination without protest and filed the petition only after he realized that he would not succeed in the examination, held that the writ Petitioner should not have been granted any relief by the High Court. In Union of India and Ors. v. S. Vinod Kumar and Ors. [2007 (9) TMI 700 - SUPREME COURT], the Court reiterated the principle that it is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. The twin contentions proponed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant deserve acceptation - Appeal allowed.
|