Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SRI SANJOY BHATTACHARJEE versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Supreme Court Cases

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SRI SANJOY BHATTACHARJEE V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [1997] RD-SC 270 (10 March 1997)

K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

O R D E R Delay condoned.

This special leave petition has been filed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, made on July 8, 1996 made in O.A No. 879/93.

Admittedly, the petitioner, having acquired Diploma in Engineering, had applied for and stood selected as Technician. The vacancies notified were 480. His ranking on merit is 779. Since he was not appointed to the post, he filed the D.A in the Tribunal. It was contended that while he was looking for ward to his appointment in accordance with the selection, instead of making the appointment the authorities issued notification for fresh recruitment, thus , defeating the right of the petitioner and others similarly situated. Therefore, direction to the respondent authorities to appoint him, as per his ranking in the select list for the year 1989 was sought. stay of fresh recruitment till the said list got exhausted, was also sought. The Tribunal has dismissed the petition holding that mere putting a candidate in the select list does not confer on him any right to appointment. Selection was made only for filling up 480 vacancies; after the absorption thereof, selection has to be made for the subsequent vacancies from the open market and,. therefore, directions sought could not be given. We find that the reasons given . We find that the reasons given by the Tribunal are well justified. Merely because the petitioner has been put in the waiting list, he does not get any vested right to an appointment. It is not his case that any one below his ranking in the waiting list has been appointed which could give him cause for grievance. Thus, he cannot seek any direction for his appointment.

For subsequent vacancies, every one in the open market is entitled to apply for consideration of his/her claim on merit in accordance with law and it would be consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.

Therefore, direction sought for not to fill up the vacancies having arisen subsequently until the candidates in the waiting list are exhausted, cannot be granted. The Tribunal rightly refused to grant any such direction.

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.