2006 (10) TMI 520 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the panel prepared for direct recruitment.
2. Legal right of the candidates in the waiting list.
3. Life of a recruitment panel.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court in review.

Summary:

1. Validity of the panel prepared for direct recruitment:
The Department of Personnel and Training, Andaman & Nicobar Administration issued a circular stating that the panel for direct recruitment should not be unduly inflated and should cater to immediate and near-future vacancies. A maximum of ten percent additional persons can be kept on the panel against existing vacancies. However, it was observed that these instructions were not followed by all departments. In 1999, three vacancies for the post of Pharmacist were notified, and a select list of three candidates was prepared. Additionally, a list of 19 candidates for future appointments was made, which was later canceled as it was prepared in violation of statutory instructions.

2. Legal right of the candidates in the waiting list:
Several candidates filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, contending that they were entitled to be appointed against future vacancies. The Tribunal rejected the application, stating that the preparation of a waiting list containing 19 candidates was neither legal nor reasonable. The Calcutta High Court initially dismissed the writ petition, stating that the panel lapsed once the notified vacancies were filled. However, a review application was allowed by another Division Bench, which opined that the panel was intended for future vacancies as well.

3. Life of a recruitment panel:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the recruitment process must comply with the statute or statutory rule. The advertisement did not indicate that a panel for future vacancies would be prepared. The life of a panel is generally one year, as governed by statutory rules. The circular dated 26.6.1992 indicated that the panel should not be unduly inflated and should cater to immediate future needs, with a maximum of 10 additional persons. The Court cited previous judgments to reinforce that a select list has a life of one year and cannot be extended unless permitted by statutory rules.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court in review:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a serious error in exercising its review jurisdiction. The High Court's power of review is limited and must be exercised within the framework of Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court did not find an error on the face of the record and proceeded to opine that the panel for future vacancies should be given effect to, contrary to the circular and general principles of law. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's judgment was ex facie illegal and set it aside.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment, stating that the respondent did not have any legal right to be appointed from the panel, and the High Court committed a manifest error in issuing the impugned directions. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.