Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Three vacancies for the post of Pharmacist were notified in the year 1999. Applications were invited from the eligible candidates. In the advertisement issued therefor, it was categorically stated :

"EMPLOYMENT NEWS Applications are invited from the eligible local candidates for the post of Pharmacist Under the A & N Health Department, Port Blair

a) No. of vacancies :- 3 (three)"

The 1st Respondent together with others, pursuant to or in furtherance of the said advertisement filed application. Interviews therefor were held in 1999. A select list of three candidates was prepared on the basis of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee on 27.5.1999. The said three persons accepted the offer and joined services. The Selection Committee, however, made a list of 19 candidates for future appointments occurring if any, in the said year. The said select list, according to Appellant, was prepared in violation of the purported statutory instructions dated 26.6.1992. All the three vacancies in the post of Pharmacist having been filled up, the said panel was directed to be cancelled by an order dated 7.12.1999. Several candidates purported to be aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, inter alia, contending that as the panel was drawn for future vacancies, they were entitled to be appointed against the vacancies occurring thereafter. It was furthermore contended that as several new posts were likely to be created and/or likely to fall vacant in the near future, they should be directed to be appointed in such vacancies. During pendency of the said application, another advertisement was issued on 17.5.2000 for filling up of one vacancy, which occurred in the year 2000. Interview was also held on 26.6.2000 and the said vacancy had also been filled up. The said fact was brought on record by Appellants herein. By an order dated 13.9.2002, the Tribunal rejected the said Original Application, inter alia, opining :

"Having regard to the unusual nature of the case, we have devoted considerable time to the submissions made on behalf of the parties, both in support of the application and against it, and we are convinced that the order of the Division Bench sought to be reviewed suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record. We are of the view that while expressing the correct legal position, the Division Bench appears to have applied the said provisions erroneously in the facts of this case, since the list of selected candidates was not confined only to the immediate vacancies but also in respect of future vacancies as well. We are inclined to agree with Mr. Roy that the first three names were in respect of immediate vacancies and the object of preparing a list other names was for the definite purpose of filling up future vacancies. It is not as if there was no intention that the panel was to be utilized at a later stage and was meant only for filling up the three immediate vacancies, which were then existing under one and the same selection."

Recruitment process, as is well known, must be commensurate with the statute or the statutory rule operating in the field. We have noticed hereinbefore, advertisement was made for three posts. It was not indicated therein that another panel for filling up of the future vacancies was to be prepared by the Selection Committee. In the select list prepared by the Selection Committee, the name of 1st Respondent was at Serial No.4. Recommendations were made containing the names of 19 persons for future vacancies. Only because a panel has been prepared by the Selection Committee, the same by itself, in our opinion, would not mean that the same should be given effect to irrespective of the fact that there was no such rule operating in the field. The Selection Committee was bound to comply with the selection process only in terms of the extant rules. It was bound to follow the stipulations made in the advertisement itself. Even in the advertisement it was not indicated that a select list would be prepared for filling up future vacancies. The Selection Committee, having been appointed only for recommending the names of suitable candidates, who were fit to be appointed, could not have embarked upon the question as regards likelihood of future vacancy.

The Division Bench of the High Court committed a serious error in entering into the merit of the matter while exercising its review jurisdiction. The court's jurisdiction to review its own judgment, as is well known, is limited. The High Court, indisputably, has a power of review, but it must be exercised within the framework of Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court did not arrive at a finding that there existed an error on the face of the record. In fact, the High Court, despite noticing the argument advanced on behalf of Union of India that the 1st Respondent had no legal right to be appointed, proceeded to opine that the panel prepared for filling up of future vacancies should be given effect to. The review of the High Court was not only contrary to the circular letter issued by Union of India, but also contrary to the general principles of law. The life of a panel ordinarily is one year. The same can be extended only by the State and that too if the statutory rule permits it to do it. The High Court ordinarily would not extend the life of a panel. Once a panel stands exhausted upon filling up of all the posts, the question of enforcing a future panel would not arise. It was for the State to accept the said recommendations of the Selection Committee or reject the same. As has been noticed hereinbefore, all notified vacancies as also the vacancy which arose in 2000 had also been filled up. As the future vacancy had already been filled up in the year 2000, the question of referring back to the panel prepared in the year 1999 did not arise. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained.