Jharkhand High Court
Rama Kant Tiwari And Ors. vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. And Ors. on 3 July, 2002
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Lakshman Uraon
JUDGMENT
S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Lakshman Uraon. JJ.
1. The 73 (seventy three) appellants-writ petitioners impleaded respondent Nos. 10 to 23 in connection writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 1047 of 1996CR), alleged that all the time respondents Steel Authority of India Ltd. (for short SAIL) made appointment without following the procedure in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India including the appointment of those respondents. They also made prayer to direct authorities to advertise the posts enabling them and other eligible persons to compete on merit for appointment.
2. Learned single Judge on hearing the parties taking into consideration that the issue as raised in the writ petition was raised in another case, C.W.J.C. No. 3166 of 1994(R) wherein a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15th May, 1995 held that no illegality was committed in making appointment, held no illegality and further held that the appellant-petitioners failed to bring on record that any person has illegally appointed after the Division Bench order dated 15th May, 1995.
3. The counsel for the appellants submitted that a number of persons were appointed after 15th May, 1995 sometime in the year 1996-97. He placed reliance on Annexure 4 series to the C.W.J.C. No. 1047 of 1996(R) wherein date of appointment of certain persons and the posts against which they were appointed have been shown.
4. From the pleading of appellants, it will be evident that though the appellants impleaded respondent Nos. 10 to 23 but neither their date of appointments have been shown nor their orders of appointments were enclosed. In Annexure 4 Series to the writ petition though names, posts and date of joining of 98 persons have been shown but most of them are not parties to the writ petition. Further it will be evident that the persons named in Annexure 4 series, they were appointed between 1990-94 i.e. much prior to the decision of Division Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 3166 of 1994(R) wherein it was observed that no illegality was committed by the respondents in making appointment.
5. In the aforesaid background and in absence of the date and order of appointment of respondent Nos. 10 to 23 it is not possible to give any declaration relating to legality and propriety of their date of appointment. This apart the pleading is vague.
6. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge.
7. The appeal is dismissed, but without any cost.