Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The appellants being aggrieved by the aforesaid directions issued by the Tribunal approached the High Court by filing WPCT No.276 of 2005. The Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 23.02.2009 found that the various findings recorded by the Tribunal against the respondent as regards the right of a waitlisted candidate as well as the manner of conduct of the selection proceedings by the Selection Committee had not been challenged by him. It, however, observed that the direction to consider the case of the respondent came to be made in view of the concession recorded in the order dated 15.01.1999. The High Court, without interfering with the said direction issued by the Tribunal, modified the said order to the extent that the outer limit of consideration of six months was not to be applicable, in case no vacancy arose within that period.

7. In the meanwhile, on 23.02.2013, a fresh notice of recruitment for various posts including that of Technician came to be published at the instance of Prasar Bharti. The respondent again approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No.739 of 2013 seeking a direction that he be absorbed on the  post of Technician in the SC category as per the advertisement dated 23.02.2013. By an interim order dated 19.07.2013, the appellants were directed to keep one post of Technician vacant under the SC category in the East Zone till the next date of the proceedings. The aforesaid Original Application came to be decided on 27.11.2015. While referring to the right of a waitlisted candidate to seek appointment, the Tribunal noted that the appellants in the year 1999 had stated that the case of the respondent would be considered against any available vacancy in the SC category. The Original Application was disposed of with a direction to the appellants to act in accordance with the earlier orders. An appropriate order in that regard was directed to be passed within a period of three months.

9. Ms. Madhusmita Bora, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court committed an error in directing the appellants to absorb the respondent on the post of Technician. The vacancy in question was of the year 1997 and admittedly the respondent was placed at Serial No.1 in the Reserved Panel. He was entitled to be considered for appointment only in the event any of the three selected candidates failed to join the post of Technician. Since all the three candidates had joined their posts, there was no occasion for the respondent to claim any entitlement to be appointed by virtue of his placement in the Reserved Panel. The respondent was merely a waitlisted candidate and had no vested right to seek appointment. The direction issued by the High Court, if implemented, would result in a waitlisted candidate of the year 1997 being absorbed in service after more than twenty five years. In that regard, the learned counsel referred to the decision in Sri Sanjoy Bhattacharjee Vs. Union of India & Ors.1 It was then submitted that the only basis for the High Court to have issued 1997 INSC 250  the impugned direction was the statement made on behalf of the appellants on 15.01.1999 that the respondent would be considered against any vacancy in the SC category in future. The said statement amounted to a concession in law which was contrary to the statutory Rules of Recruitment. The said statement, therefore, would not bind the appellants as the appellants would be required to disregard the Recruitment Rules for absorbing the services of the respondent. It was permissible for the appellants to place the correct position in law while not proceeding in accordance with such statement. To substantiate this contention, the learned counsel referred to the decisions in Director of Elementary Education, Odisha Vs. Pramod Kumar Sahoo2 and The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Vs. Union of India and others3. It was, thus, submitted that the impugned judgment of the High Court was liable to be set aside and the respondent was not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

For considering the binding nature of such statement made before the Tribunal, certain factual aspects would have to be  borne in mind. Though the placement of the respondent was at Serial No.1 in the Reserved Panel, all the selected candidates had joined on the post of Technician and, thus, there was no occasion to operate the wait list is an admitted position. No vacancy from 1997 was carried forward and a vacancy, if any, that was to arise in the future would have been a fresh vacancy. The entitlement of the respondent, if any, was as a waitlisted candidate qua the select list of 1997. There was no vested right in favour of the respondent to urge that he was entitled to be considered and appointed on any fresh vacancy arising in the future. Secondly, the statement as recorded on 15.01.1999 would have a limited operation to the extent that only if any of the selected candidates for the post of Technician in the SC category failed to join on the said post, the respondent could be appointed on such vacant post being the candidate at Serial No.1 in the Reserved Panel. The statement as recorded that the claim of the respondent, a waitlisted candidate, would be considered as and when any vacancy would arise against the SC quota cannot operate in eternity contrary to the Recruitment Rules. Thirdly, it is necessary to note that the respondent’s challenge to his placement in the Reserved Panel and the selection of three other candidates on merit was not disturbed either by the Tribunal or by the High Court. This is clear on a perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 09.12.2004 in Original Application No.989 of 1997. The High Court in WPCT No.276 of 2005 decided on 23.02.2009 affirmed the findings of the Tribunal that a waitlisted candidate did not have any legal right to claim appointment and noted that the said finding recorded by the Tribunal was not under challenge by the respondent. These material aspects would be relevant while considering the legal effect of the statement recorded on 15.01.1999 by the High Court.