Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(viii) It is not the case of the petitioners that the waitlisted candidates are ineligible to be appointed. The case argued is of expiry of a panel of the waitlisted candidates, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of A.P. AGGARWAL vs. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANOTHER reported in (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 600 has considered various judgments and held that where the selected candidates are available for appointment, there should be no hesitation in directing the authorities to appoint the selected persons even in a situation where the selection was over and the first candidate selected, joined the post and resigned after a few days.

(xiii) The petitioners and the waitlisted candidates are two distinct classes inasmuch as the petitioners are unsuccessful candidates of the said selection process and the waitlisted candidates have been found eligible entitled to be recommended for the appointment, this is a reasonable classification as such does not attract Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, to buttress the said argument, reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the case of S.S. GOYAL (supra).

40. The said memorandum thereafter records the proposal of the Commissioner of School Education to create 1600 supernumerary posts (breakup 750 Work Education and 850 Physical Education) to absorb all waitlisted candidates of Physical and Work Education Teachers subject to validation of panel, the relevant portion of the said proposal is reproduced below: -

" Proposal of the Commissioner of School Education:
The Commissioner of School Education vide its proposal dated 04/05/2022 has proposed to create 1600 nos. of supernumerary posts (breakup 750 Work Education and 850 Physical Education) to absorb all waitlisted candidates of Physical and Work Education Teachers subject to validation of panel."

51. The waitlisted candidates of the 1st SLST, 2016 were not in employment, in fact the panel and waitlist of the said selection test had expired long before the Cabinet approval of the proposal of creation of vacancies in the name of supernumerary posts to accommodate the said waitlisted candidates. Interestingly the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal had granted its no objection to the proposals to 'absorb' the waitlisted candidates subject to the validation of the panel. The Cabinet was aware about the position that supernumerary post cannot be created to appoint a person as such consciously used the word 'to absorb' in the Cabinet memorandum dated May 05, 2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DEVDUTTA (supra) has held that the term 'absorbed' in service jurisprudence, with reference to a post implies that an employee who has not been holding a particular post in his own right by virtue of either recruitment or promotion to that post but is holding a different post in a different department, is brought to that post either on deputation or by transfer and is subsequently absorbed in that post whereafter he becomes a holder of that post in his own right and loses lien on parent post.