TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the 200 candidates recommended by the Commisson. By a Memo. No. 323 dated 21.02.1992, an appointment letter was sent to Respondent asking him to join the post within fifteen days. He failed to join. Allegedly, on 20.07.1994, he requested Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, to issue an appointment letter to him, stating : I came to know that the Department had appointed maximum candidates till date and the appointment proceeding is going on for the remaining advertised 225 posts. My Serial Number is more above in the recommended merit list and junior persons to me have been appointed but I have not received any appointment letter till date for my joining. During the period of enquiry, I have come to know that the appointment let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , stating : That it is further started that in the month of December, 1999, the petitioner had submitted another representation in this Department, the case of the petitioner was referred to the Law Department, Government of Bihar, for opinion and the opinion of the learned Advocate General, Bihar was also sought and tendered. In the light of the opinion given by the Law Department/learned Advocate General, the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide Annexure-5 of the writ application. 5. The said writ petition was taken up for hearing in 2004. The High Court allowed the same, stating : While hearing the matter on 29.6.2004 I had verbally asked learned G.P. 6 to find out as to whether any post of Pashudhan Sahayak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 9. 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. 10. In Madan Lal and Others v. State of Jammu Kashmir and Others [(1995) 3 SCC 486], this Court held : It is easy to visualise that if requisition is for 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly for one year from the date of the preparation of the list and it expires thereafter 12. Yet again in Surinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(1997) 8 SCC 488], this Court stated the law thus : Prem Singh case was decided on the facts of that case and those facts do not hold good in the present case. In the case of Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. this Court has explained the scope and intent of a waiting list and how it is to operate in service jurisprudence. It cannot be used as a perennial source of recruitment filling up the vacancies not advertised. The Court also did not approve the view of the High Court that since vacancies had not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no doubt in our mind that sympathy or sentiment by itself cannot be a ground for passing an order in relation whereto the appellants miserably fail to establish a legal right. It is further trite that despite an extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily would not pass an order which would be in contravention of a statutory provision. 37. As early as in 1911, Farewell, L.J. in Latham v. Richard Johnson Nephew Ltd. observed: (All ER p. 123 E) We must be very careful not to allow our sympathy with the infant plaintiff to affect our judgment. Sentiment is a dangerous will o' the wisp to take as a guide in the search for legal principles. 70. Yet again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
