Kumar Sharma & Ors Vs. Chairman, School Service Commission & Ors 
Insc 235 (19 April 2001)
Shah & S.N. Variava S. N. Variava, J.
Appeal is against a Judgment dated 4th July, 2000.
stated the facts are as follows:
Respondents had issued an advertisement in the newspaper for filling up
vacancies in various categories of services in Schools run by them. The
Appellants had applied for the posts pursuant to the said advertisement. They
had appeared in written test as well as personality test. A panel was then
prepared. Appellants No. 1, 3 and 4 were empanelled. Appellant No. 2 was not
empanelled at all.
appointment letters were not issued to the Appellants they filed a Writ
Petition in the Calcutta High Court which was allowed by a single Judge by
Order dated 22nd
However, in Appeal the Division Bench has, by the impugned order dated 4th July, 2000, set aside the Order of the single
Judge and dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the vacancies which
had been advertised were tentative. The Division Bench has held that there were
no vacancies and, therefore, no direction could be issued for filling up the
No. 2 was not empanelled and, as such, has no right to make any claim to be
appointed. Therefore, the Appeal so far as Appellant No. 2 is concerned stands
Appellants No. 1, 3 and 4 were empanelled. Mr. Ghosh appearing for the Respondents
states that the life of panel, so far as General Category is concerned, has
been extended to 2nd
February, 2002. He
states that there are vacancies and Appellants No. 3 and 4 will be appointed
against those vacancies. In view of this statement the Order of the High Court,
so far as Appellants No. 3 and 4 are concerned, is set aside.
No. 1 belongs to the OBC Category. For reasons best known to the Respondents,
even though the life of the panel for General Category has been extended to 2nd February, 2002, the same has not been done for the
panel of the OBC Category. It has been pointed out to us that in the OBC
Category there were vacancies, yet Appellant No. 1 was not appointed and the
panel allowed to lapse. We see no justification for not appointing Appellant
No. 1 when vacancies were available. We also see no justification for not
extending the panel life of the OBC Category. We, therefore, direct that
Appellant No. 1 will be appointed against the vacancies which are available in
the OBC Category.
the above directions, the Appeal of Appellants No. 1, 3 and 4 is allowed. To
that extent the Order of the Division Bench stands set aside. There will be no
Order as to costs.