Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

28. Counsel for applicants had strenuously argued that quota of direct recruitment could not have upset but those questions are purely of academic interest in view of the factual position as explained above. Moreover the judgments relied upon by counsel for applicants deal with the question of inter-se seniority of direct recruitee and promotee. That would be relevant only for those who are in service and a person who has not even entered service cannot have any grievance as to how the seniority is to be fixed. Therefore, those judgments do not advance the case of applicants. Counsel for applicants had relied heavily on Neelima Shanglas case reported in 1986 (4) SCC 268 but the facts of said case are different inasmuch as in the said case though requisition was given by the indenting department and rules also required the PSC to communicate the result to the Govt. but PSC did not publish the result of successful candidates even though many more had qualified. It was in those circumstances that Honble Supreme Court held that PSC could not have withheld the result of successful candidates. Whereas in the present case the indenting department had reduced the number of vacancies as communicated to the SSC and SSC was working only as an agent for the department to hold independent selections, therefore, they issued select list only as per the requirement indicated to them by the indenting department. Moreover, in the advertisement a general statement is given that number of vacancies may be varied, therefore, in this case, SSC cannot be said to have committed any illegality. The above judgment, therefore, does not advance the case of applicants. It is clearly distinguishable. As far as judgment of P. Mahendran, reported in 1990 (1) SCC 411 is concerned, respondents have admitted that direct recruitment quota was wrongly diverted to promotee quota but they decided to rectify the mistake by advertising equal number of posts of Inspectors by way of direct recruitment in subsequent years to balance the quota, therefore, this judgment would also not be relevant in the peculiar facts of this case. In the instant case, admittedly wrong has been committed by the CBDT but then the point is whether any relief can be given to the applicants. We have already held above that since applicants were down below in the merit and were not even within the number of vacancies meant for general candidates as requisitioned by CBDT earlier, they cannot get the relief as claimed for. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.