TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on 4-4-1987 had expired long since and the respondents who claim their rights to be appointed on the basis of such list did not have a subsisting right on the date they approached the High Court. We may not be understood to imply that the High Court must issue such direction, if the writ petition was filed before the expiry of the period of one year and the same was disposed of after the expiry of the statutory period. In view of the aforesaid conclusion of ours it is not necessary to deal with the question whether the stand of the State Government that there existed one vacancy in the year 1987 is correct or not. Appeal allowed. - 7068 of 1996 - - - Dated:- 12-4-1996 - K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ. [Judgment per : Patta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmittee then forwards the list thus prepared to the Appointing Authority under Rule 26 mentioning the aggregate marks obtained at the selection by each candidate. The names of the candidates are arranged by the Appointing Authority in accordance with the merit of the candidates and thereafter the appointments are offered in the order in which the names are arranged. 4. The respondents approached the High Court alleging, inter alia, that though there existed vacancies during the year 1987 and the select list was prepared on 4-4-1987 but the Appointing Authority arbitrarily did not fill up the vacancies and the respondents having failed in their attempt by filing representations approached the Court for issuance of mandamus. It was also all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in view of the provisions of Rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules the High Court erred in law that the select list does not expire after expiry of one year. He further contended that the vacancy position as was indicated by the State Government is correct and the High Court erroneously came to the conclusion about the existing of more number of vacancies during the year without examining the peculiar circumstances where some appointments have been made. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not dispute the position that under the Statutory Rule the select list remains valid for one year from the date of the preparation of list. But they contended that in the past on several occasions the Appointing Authority have been appointing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or condonation is due to the delay in processing the matter through official channel and cannot be held to be good ground for condonation. It is undoubtedly true that the applicant seeking for condonation of delay is duty bound to explain the reasons for the delay but as has been held by this Court in several cases, the very manner in which the bureaucratic process moves, if the case deserves merit the Court should consider the question of condonation from that perspective. That apart the respondents themselves approached the High Court in the year 1990 making a grievance that they had not been appointed even though they are included in the Select List of 1987 and 1987 list itself expired under the Rules on 4-4-1988. In this view of the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appointment by appointing authority. -"26. The select list referred to in sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 23 shall be forwarded by the Selection Committee to the appointing authority mentioning the aggregate marks obtained at the selection by each candidate. The name of general and reserve candidates shall be arranged by the appointing authority in a common list according to the merit of the candidates and the appointment shall be offered in the order in which the names are arranged in the list shall hold good for a period of one year from the date of selection." 10. Notwithstanding the aforesaid Statutory Rule and without applying the mind to the aforesaid Rule the High Court relying upon some earlier decisions of the Court came to ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants submitted that in some cases pursuance to the direction of the Court some appointments have been made but in some other cases it might have been done by the Appointing Authority. Even though we are persuaded to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that on some occasion appointments have been made by the Appointing Authority from a select list even after the expiry of one year from the date of selection but such illegal action of the Appointing Authority does not confer a right on an applicant to be enforced by a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that such appointments by the Appointing Authority have been made contrary to the provisions of the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
