Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP.THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
GOBARDHAN & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/09/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This 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, hetook 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.
Shri Pradeep 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;
the 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.
Though we find force in the contention of Shri Pradeep Misra
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.
Any other persons who had not approached or would
approach the Court belatedly, would not be entitled to any
relief.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of No. costs.