Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The respondents resisted the claim of the applicant by filing the detailed written statement wherein they have submitted that since respondent no. 3 has not followed the guidelines issued by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Simithi (in short NVS) dated 19.01.2012, therefore, recommendations given by the committee for granting its approval for appointment of the applicant has been turned down. It has also been pleaded that since they have not published the advertisement in the local newspaper for wide publication, therefore, respondent no. 2 has rightly rejected the proposal.

5. We have heard Sh. D.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. D.R. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 & 3.

6. Sh. D.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that impugned decision by respondent no. 2 for not according its approval to the proposal given by respondent no. 3 for appointment of applicant on the plea that concerned authority has not followed instruction/guidelines dated 19.01.2012 issued by NVS by not giving wide publication in the newspaper in the local area is totally baseless just to deprive the applicant from his legitimate right. He , therefore, submitted that the respondents cannot be allowed to brush aside the recommendations made by respondent no. 3 in favour of applicant for appointment to the post of Electrician cum Plumber. To substantiate his plea, he submitted that once the respondents have followed the procedure by inviting the name from Employment Exchange and also from Sanik Kalyan Board, apart from that they have also pasted the advertisement on notice board and also advertised the advertisement for the post in question on the website of the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Bandrol, Kullu, therefore, it cannot lie in the mouth of the respondents that wide publication has not been given to fill the post of Electrician cum Plumber by way of direct recruitment. Merely by not issuing advertisement in the local newspaper does not give right to the respondents to turn down the recommendations made by the Vidyalaya Appointment Committee for giving its approval for appointment of the applicant. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court in case of Buddhadeb Ruidas and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2013 (12) SCC 221.

7. Per contra, Sh. D.R. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that to have a transparency in the appointment for the post in question, NVS headquarter had already issued the guidelines dated 19.01.2012 for filing the post under Group C Non Ministerial which was based upon the decision passed by the Honble Patna High Court in case of NVS & Ors. Vs. Harendra Kumar & Ors. (CWP No. 10478/2003) decided on 06.04.2010. Since respondent no. 3 has not notified the vacancy in the local newspaper for wide publication, thus, respondent no. 2 had decided not to give final approval and ordered to undergo for fresh selection process for the post in question. It is argued that since they have not followed the said procedure as laid down in guidelines dated 19.01.2012, therefore, their recommendation has been turned down by respondent no. 2.

8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and have perused the pleadings as available on record and also gone through judgment cited thereupon, with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.

9. On perusal of impugned order, it is evincible that ground to turn down the request was that there was no open advertisement in the local newspaper and no advertisement was published on the website of vidyalaya, therefore, respondent no. 2 rejected the recommendations for direct recruitment. Conjunctive perusal of pleadings leaves no doubt that for Group C Ministerial Post/ non-teaching staff under NVS headquarter guidelines has already been issued which is based upon the decision by the Honble Patna High Court where Honble High Court impressed that for filling up the direct vacancy, the employer is under obligation to notify the vacancy in the local newspaper which has wide circulation so that all eligible candidates in the vicinity can apply against the notified vacancy. It is also not disputed that while inviting applications for the post in question, respondent no. 3 has not issued advertisement in the Local Newspaper as envisaged in the guidelines dated 19.01.2012. They only called the candidates from Employment Exchange and have pasted the notice on notice board and cleverly advertised the notification on their own website only but same has not been done on website of NVS. As many as six applications were received and out of total, 5 candidates including applicant, was found eligible and subjected to trade test and ultimately the applicant who was continuing with the respondents since 2008, was selected and recommendations were made in his favour by Vidalaya Appointment Committee of respondent no. 3. There can be no scintilla of doubt that there was requirement of advertisement for filling up the vacancy under direct recruitment so that wide publication can be made and eligible candidates be given chance to apply for the said post. Merely calling the candidates from Employment Exchange or from Sainik Kalyan Board, cannot be said that the employer has discharged his duties of wide publication of vacancy for inviting applications from eligible candidates. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order because the decision taken by respondent no. 2 for not according its approval to the recommendations made by Committee for appointment does not suffer from any arbitrariness, rather this is based upon the guidelines dated 19.01.2012 where headquarter of NVS has laid down the guidelines for appointment of non-teaching staff in JNV. Once there are guidelines, nobody can be allowed to side track or bypass these guidelines when the same is based upon the decision where JNVs have been directed to follow the said procedure for filling up the vacancy by issuing the advertisement to remove the arbitrariness. Hence, O.A is dismissed being devoid of merit.