State Road Transport Corp. Vs. Gobardhan & Anr  INSC 1180 (20 September 1996)
O R D
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court
made on August 31, 1995 in Writ Petition 6727/93. For the
recruitment in the year 1980, the Regional Manager of the appellant-corporation
had prepared a waiting list of 414 candidates to be recruited during peak
season or during suspension of any conductors or against leave vacancy for 15
days or one month. It would appear that the list continued for 1980-81, 1981-82
and 1982-83. The appointments were to be made during the peak season by
notification in the newspapers and whoever would come within 7 days would be
given appointment. Thereafter, in respect of absentees, seniority was not being
adhered to and juniors were given appointments. It would appear that the
respondent is one of the candidates placed in the seniority list. Since he had
not received the intimation, he did not join during the peak seasons. He filed
a writ petition in 1993 challenging his non-appoint, he took the plea that
those juniors to him were already appointed and some of them were even regularised.
The High Court has accepted the contention and given the direction to appoint
him to the post of conductor since some of his juniors had come to be
appointed. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
Misra, learned counsel for the Corporation, has contended that the Corporation
has evolved the principle of wait list to meet the contingencies during peak
season etc. The wait-list, for the year 1980 in fact was cancelled in July 19, 1980; the writ petitions which came to
be filed against the cancellation were dismissed;
respondent filed the writ petition for the first time in 1983; from 1988
onwards, the wait-list procedure has been dispensed with and, therefore, the
High Court was not justified in giving the direction. Shri Bhattacharya,
learned counsel for the respondent, contended that since the newspaper had no
circulation in the region in which he was living, he could not appear and join
the post; but since his juniors came to be appointed and some of them benefit.
we find force in the contention of Shri Pradeep Misra that the candidates have
no right to the post since they are in the wait-list, since the Corporation has
already appointed some of the juniors who are in the waiting list necessarily,
before following that procedure, they should have given intimation to those
candidates who were placed in the waiting list; if even then they do not turn
up, then it could be taken that they have waived the right of appointment. But
in this case, it might be that a candidate who was in the waiting list was
under the expectation that he would get an order of appointment from the
Corporation as and when the vacancy arises and may be he could not read the
newspaper, though published. Under these circumstances, we think that after the
cancellation of the wait-list procedure, though no one has a right; those who
were on the wait list need to be considered in accordance with the rules in
view of the fact that their juniors had got appointment and were even regularised.
Therefore, the appellant are directed to consider the case of the respondent as
a special case and make appointment according to the procedure.
other persons who had not approached or would approach the Court belatedly,
would not be entitled to any relief.
appeal is accordingly disposed of No. costs.