Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2006 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (9) TMI 569 - SC - Indian LawsAdvertisement for appointment of 225 posts of Live Stock Assistants in the Animal Husbandry Department - selection process completed - appointment letter sent to Respondent asked to join the post within fifteen days - failed to join - again requested Director to issue an appointment letter - State in its Counter Affidavit categorically raised a contention that the panel remained valid only for one year - HELD THAT:- It may or may not be that Respondent herein had actually received his appointment letter. It was, however, expected that he would make enquiries thereabout; particularly when on his own showing those who were below him in the selection list had already been permitted to join. Admittedly, he came to know thereabout in 1994. He allegedly filed a representation and although no reply thereto was given, he did not take any step soon thereafter. He filed another representation only in 1995. He filed the writ petition after a long period i.e. in 2001 when his purported representation filed in the year 1999 was rejected. In the aforementioned situation, in our opinion, he did not have any legal right to be appointed. Life of a panel, it is well known, remains valid for a year. Once it lapses, unless an appropriate order is issued by the State, no appointment can be made out of the said panel. It may be true that the appointment letter was sent by ordinary post; but even in relation thereto a statutory presumption arises. It is also well known that postal delay by itself may not be a ground to take a sympathetic view In Maruti Udyod Ltd. v. Ram Lal and Others [2005 (1) TMI 671 - SUPREME COURT]. Thus, in our opinion, the High Court should not have allowed Respondent herein to join his services only on the basis of sympathy. It is now also well settled that in absence of any legal right, the Court should not issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus on the basis of sympathy. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the High Court committed a manifest error in allowing the writ petition of Respondent. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. However, no recovery shall be made for the period he has actually worked.
|