Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: selection process completed in Sanjay Kumar Singh And Others vs Sstate Of U. P. And Others on 25 May, 2000Matching Fragments
15. Final list, on the basis of merit adjudged as above, is to be prepared by adding all marks on aggregate basis under Rule 5 (5).
16. Rule 8 reads, "When selection process is complete and select list is forwarded to the appointing authority, the correct answer of the answers in the written examination and the mark obtained by the candidate along with the aggregate mark under Rule 5 (5) shall be published in the dally newspaper and displayed on the notice board of the office concerned."
17. Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his argument referred to Article 154, Constitution of India which reads :
The said judgment is relevant to the extent that Government is not divested of overall supervision upon its officers and authorities even if under Article 309. Constitution of India. Rules have been framed unless otherwise restriction/limitation is imposed upon it.
(3) 1998 Lab IC 1723, Vinod Kumar and others v. State of U. P. and others.
Learned single Judge observed--"......The recruitment, of necessity, had to be according to the procedure prescribed." it is a case in which patent and blatant Irregularities and illegalities were committed in making selection. Moreover, when once the superior authorities, including the State Government had taken a firm decision that no fresh appointment even of the candidate of reserved category are to be made on the basis of Group 'D' the act of the concerned Deputy Director, namely, Sri Ram Lakhan, was clearly in flagrant violation of such policy decision duly communicated to him. He deliberately disobeyed the directions of the superior authorities. The petitioners have not joined their duties. The fervent and persuasive submission of Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner that once the selection process is complete and appointment letters have been issued to the petitioners, they have acquired an indefeasible right to join their duties and that in any case, the appointment letters could not have been cancelled without affording them an opportunity of hearing, is not acceptable. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Shonkarson B. Dash v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612. has observed that it is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an Indefeasible right to be appointed, which cannot be legitimately denied......"It is true that the State does not have a licence to act in an arbitrary manner but in the present case. It would appear that there have been glaring illegalities and flagrant disregard of the procedure prescribed as well as deliberate disobedience of the directions issued in the matter by the superior authorities."
46. Otherwise also, I find that by directing fresh interview to be held, no vested right of the petitioners, will be infringed which may justify interference by this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India. This is not a fit case where this Court should resort to its extraordinary powers under Article 226. Constitution of India particularly when no substantive right of the petitioners has been infringed and no irreparable injury is caused inasmuch as the petitioners will again have chance to appear in interview on the basis of their earlier written test merit--if the selection process is to be completed provided the Government so decides after lapse of more than one year, and if so permissible under law.
49. Considering the facts of the present case particularly, the delay caused due to ad interim order dated 14.6.1999 in Writ Petition No. 24307 of 1999 and also the Interim order dated 28.5.1999 (extended from time to time) in Writ Petition No. 23161 of 1999, I direct the respondents as well as concerned authority to ensure that the selection process is being completed as contemplated under relevant rules in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within four months of the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.