Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2009 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (1) TMI 907 - SC - Indian LawsAppointment for the post of Lower Primary/Upper Primary School Assistants - Kerala Public Service Commission ("the Commission") prepared a rank list - Appellants name figured therein - appellant contended that as their names appeared in the `rank list' and they being seniors to some of the original writ petitioners they should also be directed to be appointed. The legality and/or the validity of Government Order dated 15.1.2002, as noticed hereinbefore, was questioned, inter alia, on the premise that the actual vacancy position had been suppressed by the State. HELD THAT:- The matter might have been different, had the learned single judge as also the Division Bench come to a conclusion that in fact there existed 125 vacancies wherefor requisition was sent to the Commissioner. The existence of actual number of vacancies being in dispute, it is difficult for us to opine as has been contended by the ld counsel that all such vacancies existed. Before the Division Bench of the High Court, the State conceded that 18 original writ petitioners may be appointed stating that they were the actual beneficiaries of the judgment. Such a stand on the part of the State was accepted. The Division Bench of the High Court did not go into the other contentions raised by the parties thereto. No factual foundation, therefore, has been laid before us for arriving at the conclusion that all the 125 vacancies existed. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. A person does not acquire a legal right to be appointed only because his name appears in the select list. In Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India [1991 (4) TMI 444 - SUPREME COURT], a Constitution Bench of this Court held that the decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. Furthermore, the rank list was valid for a period of three years. Its validity expired on 5.6.2000. Another Select List was published for the period from 16.9.2002 to 15.9.2005. Vacancies in terms of the said Select List have also been filled up. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". Government Order was issued on 15.1.2002. Appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and State of Kerala preferred an appeal thereagainst, they impleaded themselves as party respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage. Therefore, we see no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly.
|