Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(c) It is stated that GPSC has completed the process of selection and list of selected candidates is prepared and sent to the State Government. If GPSC has not finalized the list, then respondent GPSC is hereby directed to finalize the list and send it to the State Government with recommendations for appointment of selectees at the earliest and preferably within one week from the receipt of writ of this order.

(d) The State Government, obviously is directed to take further appropriate steps in accordance with the recommendations made by the GPSC within two to four weeks from the date of receipt of such final list of candidates recommended by the GPSC.

11. It appears to the Court that the respondents have denied the petitioner legitimate right to be appointed to the post of lecturer in Physics inspite of the fact that on account of a Scheduled Caste candidate from the select list did not join in January 2003, since he was already working on the said post since more than two years, and inspite of the fact that the petitioner being at Sr. No. 1 of the waiting list and also a Scheduled Caste candidate was, therefore, required to be appointed on that vacancy. A large number of ad-hoc lecturers in Physics who had either not appeared at the GPSC selection or who had appeared, but failed to pass at such selection, were continued in service as ad-hoc lecturers and are continued as such even now. In the aforesaid litigation, the State Government had fairly submitted (para 72 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge at page 1247 of the reports) that after appointing GPSC selected candidates in each subject, if the Government finds that there is a scope to continue ad-hoc appointees or to continue ad-hoc appointees on the available vacancies, then the State is ready to continue such ad-hoc appointees till regularly selected candidates are made available. This Court also held (para 76 Page 1251) that obviously those who have failed and not included in the select list, cannot be permitted to continue on the post. However, such ad-hoc lecturers can be continued if no GPSC selectees are available against their respective posts. Direction (b) given by the learned Single Judge (para 77 page 1252) also required the State Government to appoint the lecturers selected and recommended by the GPSC in each subject against the available vacancies advertised. They were to replace ad-hoc lecturers in the respective subjects for which they have been selected. The Court also directed the State Government to take appropriate steps in consonance with the recommendations of the GPSC within two to four weeks from the date of receipt of the final list of candidates recommended by the GPSC. All these directions were confirmed by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 11.12.2002 in the Letters Patent Appeals with scathing criticism of the tortious inaction on the part of the State Government and GPSC. The State Government did not, however, pay heed to the above directions and the State Government and GPSC have sought to justify the inaction of not operating the waiting list in 2003 and 2004 on the ground that the time limit stipulated by the Government Circular dated 20.2.1998 had expired in June 2002.

12. At this stage, therefore, the true scope and purport of the Government Circular dated 20.2.1998 needs to be examined. The said resolution provides for a two year validity period for the waiting list. Before considering the validity of the waiting list, it would be necessary to refer to the resolutions/circulars providing for operation of the select list. By the Government Circular dated 16.1.1969, when the State Government in the General Administration Department noticed that considerable delay occurs in communicating Government decision to the GPSC on the recommendations made by it, the Government directed that in respect of the Commission's recommendation for appointment to the posts by direct selection, the required action like verification of character and antecedents and medical examination of the candidates and offer of appointments should be completed within two months from the date of the Commission's recommendations and that the Commission be informed of the action taken to accept its recommendation within this period. Again by Government Circular (GAD) dated 27.5.1982, the Government provided that the aforesaid period for acting upon the recommendations of the GPSC and informing the GPSC about the action taken by the Government should not exceed a period of six months under any circumstances. In case the time is not complied with, such non-compliance alongwith reasons therefor must be intimated to the GPSC. The abovesaid instructions were reiterated by the Government circular dated 26.11.1991. By circular dated 27.8.1997, the State Government directed that when GPSC selected candidates are available, but they are not given appointment, the ad-hoc appointment should not be made and ad-hoc appointments given earlier should be terminated forthwith.

17. Similarly, the decision in State of Bihar v. Md. Kalimuddin, (1996) 2 SCC 7 has to be read in the context of the facts of that case where the Court gave a direction for appointment of a person after the life of the select list had come to an end. That was a case where the rule in question was a statutory rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.

In the instant case, the Government Circular dated 20.2.1998 contains mere executive instructions which have to be read as a part of the entire scheme of Government instructions regarding implementation of the GPSC recommendations including the Government circulars regarding operation of the select list itself.