Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2890 of 2001
PETITIONER:
VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
CHAIRMAN, SCHOOL SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/04/2001
BENCH:
M.B. Shah & S.N. Variava
JUDGMENT:
S. N. VARIAVA, J.
Leave granted.
Heard parties.
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 4th July, 2000.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
The 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.
As 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 December,
1999. 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 vacancies.
Appellant 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
dismissed.
The 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Order of the High Court, so far as Appellants No. 3 and 4
are concerned, is set aside.
Appellant 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.
With 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.