Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
U. Srinivasa Rao And Anr. vs Nuclear Fuel Complex, Department Of ... on 9 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(2)ALT137
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha
JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. The writ petitioners appear to have been selected in the year 1992, wherefor a selected list was prepared. They were not appointed. Thereafter, in the year 1994, an amendment in the procedure for selection had come into force. The petitioners filed applications, when fresh vacancies were notified, before the Tribunal praying therein for a direction upon the respondents to give effect to the aforementioned 1992 panel. The Original Application was dismissed; whereagainst the present writ petition has been filed.
2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that by reason of the said 1994 amendment, only a provision for training has been inserted and the writ petitioners are ready to undergo such training.
3. However, it is not disputed that the petitioners had been selected out of 1992 select list. It is now a well settled principles of law that a panel cannot be allowed to remain alive for a long time. It is further well settled that once a new procedure has been laid down for selecting the candidates, all vacancies arising thereafter must be filled up in terms of the amended Rules. Further more, the petitioners do not have any legal right to be selected only because they were empanelled as far back as in the year 1992. Reference in this connection has been made to State of Bihar v. Secretarial Assistance Successful Examinees Union, . Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, and Sabita Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. Sabita Prasad's case1992 (3) SCALE 361. is also an authority for the proposition that the panel cannot be allowed to remain alive for a long time, having regard to the fact that the vacancy position was subject to variation.
4. The aforementioned question came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.No. 23308 of 1996, wherein, having regard to the notification as also Rule 8(b) of G.O.Ms.No. 221 dated 16-7-1994, which reads, "the number of vacancies notified are subject to variation at any time", it was held that the vacancies arising later on can be pooled for consideration of the candidates for appointment pursuant to the notification. Such is not the case here. In the instant case, vacancies have arisen after 1994 Rules had come into force. The said decision of this Court, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners herein and, in fact, runs counter to the submission made by the learned Counsel.
5. For the reasons afore mentioned, we are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the writ petitioners.
6. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to consider the cases of all the eligible candidates, including the petitioners herein, in accordance with the amended Rules. There shall be no order as to costs.