Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/2614/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2614 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5700 of 2010
=========================================
JITENDRA
NARENDRABHAI SURTI
Versus
LIFE
INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (NOTICE TO BE SERVED AND OTHERS
=========================================Appearance
:
MR
RAMNANDAN SINGH for
the Appellant
MR AK CLERK for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 05/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. Learned
counsel Mr. A.K. Clerk states that he is appearing for respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
2. We
have heard learned counsel Mr. Ramnandan Singh for the appellant and
Mr. A.K. Clerk for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
3. The
brief facts of the case are that the respondent Corporation had
invited applications for recruitment to the post of “Assistant”
in Class III category by issuing advertisement in local daily Gujarat
Samachar on 13th October 1993. The appellant had applied,
and undergone the written test and interview and his name reflected
at serial no.191 (SC) in the select list. In pursuance of the same,
some of the candidates were given appointment. According to the
appellant, he was given assurance that as and when the vacancy
arises, the appellant would also be absorbed in service. In the
meantime the candidates, including the appellant, who were in the
select list were given temporary appointments.
4. Since
there was no permanent appointment, the appellant preferred Special
Civil Application No.20794 of 2005 and 13 other similar petitions
were also filed. In one of the petitions, the respondent Corporation
filed an affidavit stating that all the petitioners therein would be
given permanent appointment as soon as the ban on recruitment was
lifted. Accordingly this court disposed of the said petitions by
common order dated 5th April 2006. According to the
appellant, his petition being Special Civil Application No.20794 of
2005 got separated and he was under the impression that the said
petition was also disposed of along with other petitions. According
to the appellant, as per Recruitment Instructions 1993, the panel
list has no validity period and therefore the said panel will operate
till last selected candidate is appointed.
5. In
the year 2007 the respondent Corporation amended the Recruitment
Instructions 1993 for Class III and IV employees. According to new
rule, the panel will be having life of one year and it could be
extended for maximum period of two years. Under the circumstances a
group of petitions came to be filed before this Court against
scraping of the earlier panel. It appears that the appellant was not
a party to the said petitions. This Court by common order dated 12th
May 2008 directed that those who had worked on temporary basis would
be given appointment order. Against the said order of learned Single
Judge, the respondent Corporation filed Letters Patent Appeals. The
Division Bench dismissed four appeals of the Corporation which were
filed by some of the candidates from Vadodara Division who were
senior to the candidates in whose favour undertaking was given in
2005 and appointments were made in 2007. However, the Division Bench
allowed all the appeals.
6. The
respondent Corporation filed four Special Leave Petitions (Civil)
being SLP Nos.21215-21218 of 2009 which came to be dismissed by order
dated 9th October 2009.
7. In
the meantime, those candidates against whom the respondent
Corporation succeeded before the Division Bench had approached the
Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.11449 of
2009 and other allied matters. When those petitions came up for
hearing on 26th February 2010 the respondent Corporation
gave an undertaking that all the petitioners who had filed SLPs
before the Supreme Court and those who have worked on temporary
basis, would be given regular appointment as and when the vacancies
arise.
8. It
is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that
appellant’s writ petition, being Special
Civil Application No.20794 of 2005, was dismissed on
15.10.2010, by the learned Single Judge as having become infructuous.
This order was not challenged by the appellant by way of appeal.
Therefore, this order has become final and is binding on the parties.
9. After
the dispute between the appellant and the respondents became final,
the appellant has filed fresh writ petition, on the ground that some
benefits have been conferred on some other persons who were also in
the select list.
10. In
the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Ghanshyam Dass &
Others, reported in 2011 (2) SCALE 479, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, ‘those who slept over their rights
for long and elected to wake up after they had impetus from some
other decisions, such persons cannot be granted any benefit merely on
the ground that some other persons have been granted benefits’.
11. For
the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal fails and is
accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(V.M.
SAHAI, J.)
(G.B.
SHAH, J.)
omkar
Top