Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1249/2011 7/ 7 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1249 of 2011
=========================================================
YUSUFKHAN
SULTANKHAN PATHAN & 7 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MANAGING
DIRECTOR, GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & 1 -
Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
GK RATHOD for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 8.MR MUKESH H RATHOD for Petitioner(s) : 1 -
8.
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 28/02/2011
ORAL ORDER
1. This
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed, with the following prayers :
“(A) Your
Lordship may kindly be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
(B) Your
Lordship may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any
other appropriate writ, order or
direction holding that the petitioners are entitled for appointment
on the post of Drivers as per the Selection List dated 28.4.2000 and
29.4.2000 prepared by Selection Committee of the respondent
corporation and set aside the decision of cancellation the list as
contradiction from G.S.O. 1128/04 and other way.
(C) Your
Lordship may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the
respondent corporation to appoint the petitioners on the posts of
Drivers as per the Selection List dated 28.4.2000 and 29.4.2000 by
selection Committee of the respondent corporation with all
consequential benefits.
(D) During
the pendancy and final hearing this petition, Your Lordships may
kindly be pleased to direct the respondent corporation to appoint the
petitioners on the posts of Drivers as per the Selection list
28.4.2000 and 29.4.2000 by Selection Commission of the respondent
corporation.
(E) Any
other and further relief may kindly be granted as Your Lordship
deemed fit just and proper in the interest of justice.”
2. The
case of the petitioners, as emerging from the averments made in the
petition, is that the respondent – Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation invited applications for the post of Drivers, however, no
specific date is mentioned in the petition. The petitioners applied
for the said posts and were selected on 28.4.2000 and 29.4.2000.
According to the petitioners a total number of 150 candidates were
selected for the posts of
Driver in Junagadh Division and a selection list was prepared
accordingly. The selected candidates, including the petitioners,
underwent a medical examination and training for the posts of Driver.
According to the petitioners, the candidates figuring from Serial
Nos.1 to 115 in the select list were given appointments whereas the
other candidates were not appointed. The petitioners represented to
the respondent – Corporation in this regard and received a
reply on 17.6.2006, wherein it is stated that the select list has
been cancelled, as a period of two years is over, therefore, the
petitioners cannot given appointments. The petitioners issued legal
notice dated 16.3.2009, which elicited no further response from the
respondent-Corporation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have
filed the present petition.
3. Mr.
Mukesh H. Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted
that since the petitioners had been selected by following due
procedure, by Selection Committee, they ought to have been given
appointments. The action on the part of the respondent in not
appointing the petitioners, is illegal
and arbitrary and against the General Standing Order (‘G.S.O.’ for
short) No.1128/2004 dated 12.10.2004 of the Corporation, wherein it
is stated that the select-list would remain operative for a period of
two years. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the
petitioners that the petitioners were called for medical check up and
they have undergone training for 21 days, therefore, they have a
right to be appointed. Besides, there are vacancies available with
the respondents, therefore, the prayers made in the petition may be
granted.
4. I
have heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and perused the
averments made in the petition, as well as the documents on record.
5. It
is not disputed that the petitioners were selected on 28.4.2000 and
29.4.2000 and their names were placed on the select-list. Out of a
total number of 150 candidates in the select-list, 115 candidates
were appointed, whereas the other candidates, including the
petitioners, were not conferred appointments. There is no material
on record to suggest that how
many vacant posts were available at the relevant period of time and
whether the select list could have been operated fully. It is also
not the case of the petitioners that the vacant posts, if any, were
filled up by appointing candidates from outside the select-list. It
cannot, therefore, be assumed that merely by virtue of the names of
the petitioners being placed on the select-list, they are conferred
with any legal or vested right for appointment. It is a settled
position of law, enunciated by the Supreme Court in a catena
of judgments, that merely by placement of the name of a candidate in
the select-list, no right to appointment accrues to such candidate.
The
aspect regarding training being given to the petitioners has no
relevance, as that would not give them any superior or vested right
for appointment. The G.S.O. No.1128/2004 dated 12.10.2004, relied
upon by the petitioners merely states that the select-list would
remain operative for a period of two years. This G.S.O. does not
state that it has retrospective effect. The petitioners were selected
on 28.4.2000 and 29.4.2000 and there is no averment made in the
petition regarding the
prevalent Rules or G.S.O. that were in vogue at the relevant period
of time. Therefore, reliance on this G.S.O. would also not come to
the aid of the petitioners. Another noteworthy aspect
is that, according to the petitioners, the selection has taken place
on 28.4.2000 and 29.4.2000, whereas the petition has been filed on
19.1.2011, though the affidavit with the petition has been affirmed
on 6.1.2011. There is a considerable delay between the selection of
the petitioners and filing of the petition which remains unexplained.
For a selection that took place in the year 2000, the petitioners
cannot claim any right of appointment in the year 2011, especially in
the light of the settled legal position, that they have no vested
right or claim to appointment, merely because their names were placed
in the select-list.
It
has been submitted that there are vacancies available against which
the petitioners can be appointed. Availability of vacancies in the
year 2011, if that is so, does not mean that they should be filled up
from the select-list prepared in the year 2000, especially as the
same has already been operated
and has expired long back. If the respondents are desirous of filling
the vacancies, if any, they would have to resort to a fresh procedure
of recruitment. The claim of the petitioners on this ground is
untenable, and cannot be accepted.
6. In
view of the above, no legal, fundamental, vested or indefeasible
right of the petitioners has been infringed, the petition deserves to
be rejected, as being devoid of merit.
7. The
petition is, accordingly rejected.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
~gaurav~
Top