{"id":33773,"date":"2006-07-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006"},"modified":"2018-01-05T03:01:18","modified_gmt":"2018-01-04T21:31:18","slug":"the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Union Of India vs The Central on 5 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Union Of India vs The Central on 5 July, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 05\/07\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO          \nand \nTHE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA        \n\nWrit Petition No.5525 of 2000\n Writ Petition No.6046 of 2000\n Writ Petition No.6503 of 2000\n and\n Writ Petition No.6504 of 2000\n\n1. The Union of India\n    rep. by\n    The Chief Secretary to Government\n    Chief Secretariat Buildings\n    Pondicherry.\n\n2.  The Deputy Secretary to Government \n    Department of Personnel and\n    Administrative Reforms\n    Chief Secretariat Buildings\n    Pondicherry.                        ...Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Central\n    Administrative Tribunal\n    Madras Bench \n    through its Registrar.\n\n2.  P.R.Magimainathan Vincent \n    L.D.C. Chief Secretariat\n    Pondicherry.\n\n3.  D.Coumarane alias Pragche \n\n4.  S. Suresh Pilomine\n\n5.  S. Mathiazhagan \n\n6.  L. Thirumourougane\n\n7.  K. Chandrasekran \n\n8.  P. Sumitra\n\n9.  R. Pushpanathan \n\n10.  R. Venkatakrishnan\n\n11.  S. Baskaran\n\n12.  G. Ravindran\n\n13.  V. Ravisankar.\n\n14.  N. Ballassoundary\n\n15.  A. Punithamary\n\n16.  R. Mounnissamy  \n\n17.  A.K.Ajay Kumar \n\n18.  S. Chadjahan Sheik \n\n19.  S. Ravichandran\n\n20.  V. Muralidharan\n\n21.  A. Mohammed Ismail  \n\n22.  S. Murugesan \n\n23.  M.V.Hiran\n\n24.  S. Pouchepanadane  \n\n25.  P.K.Sujan\n\n26.  P. Reddy\n\n27.  N. Udayakumar \n\n28.  J. Murali\n\n29.  P. Devarajan\n\n30.  E.N.Anil Goind\n\n31.  G. Savoundirarajan\n\n32.  Satish\n\n33.  J. Devidasan\n\n34.  M. Raja\n\n35.  K. Arunagirinathan\n\n36.  N. Viswanathan \n\n37.  A. Narendiran\n\n38.  G. Jagannathan \n\n39.  G. Jegannathan \n\n40.  Mourougannadan Rodin  \n\n41.  V. Calaiyarasi\n\n42.  K.Candane @ Sivaradgane  \n\n43.  S. Yesvanathaiayah \n\n44.  Vincent\n\n45.  V. Lakshminarayanan \n\n46.  S. Radhakrishnan \n\n47.  Soundary \n\n48.  A. Ravi\n\n49.  M. Danasegaran \n\n50.  M. Soubramanian \n\n51.  E.Dakshinamurthy                   ...Respondents.\n\n        Petition  filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying\nfor the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to\nthe order passed in O.A.No.180\/97 dated 29\/12\/1999  on  the  file  of  Central\nAdministrative Tribunal, Madras and to quash and dismiss the same.\n\n!For petitioners  :     Mr.K.K.Shasheedharan\n                        for Mr.T.Murugesan\n                        GP (Pondicherry).\n\n^For respondents  :     Mr.D.Bharatha Chakravarthy\n                        for RR2 to 7.\n\n                        Mr.U.Karunakaran\n                        for M\/s.G.M.Associates\n                        for R10 to 13,17 to 21,24,26,28,\n                        29,31,32,34 to 42,44 to 50.\n\n\n\n W.P.No.6046 of 2000 \n\n1.  The Union of India\nrep.  by\nThe Chief Secretary to Government \nChief Secretariat Buildings\nPondicherry.\n\n2.  The Deputy Secretary to Government \nDepartment of Personnel and \nAdministrative Reforms\nChief Secretariat Buildings\nPondicherry.                            ...Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Central Administrative Tribunal\nMadras Bench  \nthrough its Registrar.\n\n2.  V.  Padmanabhan  \n\n3.  P.  Sumitra\n\n4.  R.  Pushpanathan \n\n5.  R.  Venkatakrishnan\n\n6.  S.  Baskaran\n\n7.  C.  Ravindrane\n\n8.  V.  Ravishankar\n\n9.  N.  Balassoundary\n\n10.  A.  Punithamary\n\n11.  R.  Mounnissamy \n\n12.  A.K.Ajaykumar \n\n13.  S.  Chandran Sheik\n\n14.  S.  Ravichandran\n\n15.  V.  Muralidharan\n\n16.  Mohammed Ismail  \n\n17.  S.Murugesan \n\n18.  M.V.Hiran\n\n19.  S.  Pouchepanadane  \n\n20.  P.K.Sujan\n\n21.  P.Radjy\n\n22.  N.  Udayakumar \n\n23.  J.Murali\n\n24.  P.Devarajan\n\n25.  E.N.Anilgovind\n\n26.  G.Soundirarajan\n\n27.  S.Satish\n\n28.  J.Devidasan\n\n29.  M.Raja\n\n30.  K.Arunagirinathan\n\n31.  N.Viswanathan \n\n32.  A.Narendiran\n\n33.  S.Muralidharan\n\n34.  G.Jagannathan \n\n35.  Mourouganandam Redin   \n\n36.  V.Calaiyarasi\n\n37.  K.Candane @ Sivarajdane  \n\n38.  S.Yesvanathaniyah \n\n39.  Vincent\n\n40.  V.Lakshminarayanan  \n\n41.  S.Radhakrishnan \n\n42.  M.Mohana Soundary  \n\n43.  A.Ravi\n\n44.  A.Ravi\n\n45.  M.Soubramanian  \n\n46.  E.Dakshinamurthy                   ...Respondents\n\n        Petition  filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying\nfor the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to\nthe order passed in O.A.No.715\/97 dated 29\/12\/1999  on  the  file  of  Central\nAdministrative Tribunal, Madras and to quash and dismiss the same.\n\n For petitioners  :  Mr.K.K.Shasheedharan\n                     for Mr.T.Murugesan\n\n For respondents  :  Mr.U.Karunakaran\n                     for M\/s.G.M.Associates\n                     for R.R.5-8, 12-16,19,\n                     21,23,24,26,27,29-37,\n                     39,40-45.\n\n\n\nW.P.No.6503 of 2000  \n\n1.  P.K.Sujan\n\n2.  P.Radjy\n\n3.  J.  Murali\n\n4.  P.Devarajan\n\n5.  G.Savoundirarajan\n\n6.  S.Satish\n\n7.  M.Raja\n\n8.  K.Arunagirinathan\n\n9.  A.Narendiran\n\n10.  S.Muralidharan\n\n11.  G.Jagannathan \n\n12.  K.Candane @ Sivaradjane  \n\n13.  M.Mohana Soundary  \n\n14.  A.Ravi\n\n15.  M.Danasegaran  \n\n16.  M.Soubramanian  \n\n17.  V.Lakshminarayanan               ...Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n\n1.  The Union of India\nrep.  by\nThe Chief Secretary to Government \nChief Secretariat Buildings\nPondicherry.\n\n\n\n\n\n2.  The Deputy Secretary to Government \nDepartment of Personnel and \nAdministrative Reforms\nChief Secretariat Buildings\nPondicherry.\n\n3.  The Registrar\nCentral Administrative Tribunal\nHigh Court Buildings\nChennai 600 104. \n\n4.  P.R.Magimainathan Vincent \n\n5.  D.Coumarane alias Pragache \n\n6.  P.Suresh Philomin\n\n7.  L.Thirumugane\n\n8.  K.Chandrasekaran \n\n9.  P.Sumitra\n\n10.  R.Pushpanathan                   ...Respondents.\n\n\n                Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India\npraying  for  the  issuance  of  a  writ of certiorari to call for the records\npertaining to the common order  dated  29\/12\/1999  passed  in  O.A.Nos.180\/97,\n425\/98   and   715\/97   by  the  third  respondent  on  the  file  of  Central\nAdministrative Tribunal, Madras and to quash the same.\n\n For petitioners   :    Mr.V.Karunakaran\n                        for M\/s.G.M.Mani Associates\n\n For respondents   :    Mr.K.K.Shashidharan, GP\n                        for R.R.1 and 2.\n\n                        Mr.S.K.Raghunathan for R.4\n\n\nW.P.No.6504 of 2000  \n\n1.  P.K.Sujan\n\n2.  P.Radjy\n\n3.  J.  Murali\n\n4.  P.Devarajan\n\n5.  G.Savoundirarajan\n\n6.  S.Satish\n\n7.  M.Raja\n\n8.  K.Arunagirinathan\n\n9.  A.Narendiran\n\n10.  S.Muralidharan\n\n11.  G.Jagannathan \n\n12.  K.Candane alias Sivaradjane\n\n13.  M.Mohana Soundary  \n\n14.  A.Ravi\n\n15.  M.Danasegaran  \n\n16.  M.Soubramanian  \n\n17.  V.Lakshminarayanan                   ...Petitioners\n\n\nVs \n\n\n1.  The Union of India\nrep.  by\nThe Chief Secretary to Government \nChief Secretariat Buildings\nPondicherry.\n\n2.  The Deputy Secretary to Government \nDepartment of Personnel and \nAdministrative Reforms\nChief Secretariat Buildings\nPondicherry.\n\n3.  The Registrar\nCentral Administrative Tribunal\nHigh Court Buildings\nChennai 600 104. \n\n4.  V.Padmanabhan                    ...Respondents.\n\n                Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India\npraying  for  the  issuance  of  a  writ of certiorari to call for the records\npertaining to the common order  dated  29\/12\/1999  passed  in  O.A.Nos.180\/97,\n425\/98   and   715\/97   by  the  third  respondent  on  the  file  of  Central\nAdministrative Tribunal, Madras and to quash the same.\n\n For petitioners    :   Mr.V.Karunakaran\n                        for M\/s.G.M.Mani Associates\n\n For respondents    :   Mr.K.K.Shashidharan, GP\n                        for R.R.1 and 2.\n\n                        Mr.S.K.Raghunathan for R.4\n\n:COMMON ORDER      \n\n         (Order of the Court was made by Mr.Justice ELIPE DHARMA RAO).  \n\n                This common order shall dispose of the  above  mentioned  four\nwrit  petitions as the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the\nsame and common arguments were advanced in all the writ petitions. \n\n                2.  While W.P.  Nos.5525 and 6046 of 2000 were  filed  by  the\nGovernment  of  Pondicherry,  challenging the order dated 29-12-1999 passed by\nthe Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal) in O.A.   Nos.180\nand 715  of  1997, W.P.  Nos.6503 and 6504 of 2000 were filed by the aggrieved\noriginal applicants challenging the order dated  29-12  -1999  passed  by  the\nTribunal in O.A.  Nos.180 and 715 of 1997.\n\n                3.  Facts<\/pre>\n
, in brief, are:  In the year 1994, the Government of
\nPondicherry  had  notified  23 vacancies (21 regular vacancies and 2 vacancies
\nreserved for ex-servicemen) in the cadre of Upper Division Clerk  (  in  short
\nUDC)  for  being  filled  up  by  direct  recruitment  through  a  competitive
\nexamination.  According to the  relevant  Recruitment  Rules,  the  method  of
\nrecruitment  to  the  post  of  UDC  is  80%  by  promotion  and 20% by direct
\nrecruitment  through  competitive  examination  from  among   the   candidates
\npossessing  a  degree  of  a  recognised  University  and from among the Lower
\nDivision Clerks (LDCs) with three years of continuous service.    Accordingly,
\nthe  Government  on 29-4-1994 addressed the Employment Exchange as well as the
\nRajya Sainik Board to furnish the list of  eligible  candidates  and  eligible
\nex-servicemen.   On  the  very  same  day,  the Government also issued an I.D.
\nNote\/Memorandum to all the Secretariat Departments informing  the  conduct  of
\ncompetitive  examination for direct recruitment to the post of UDCs and called
\nfor applications, through proper channel, from the eligible LDCs to appear for
\nthe competitive examination along with the  employment  exchange\/Rajya  Sainik
\nBoard sponsored candidates.  The competitive examination was held on 11-8-1996
\nand the  results were announced on 15-11-1996.  The Government, by order dated
\n15-11-1996, prepared a select-list of successful candidates for 44  vacancies.
\nChallenging  the select-list prepared by the Government for 44 vacancies, some
\nLDCs working in the various departments of  the  Pondicherry  Government  have
\nfiled original applications  (O.A.    Nos.180  of  1997  and 425 of 1998).  An
\nunsuccessful candidate sponsored by the employment exchange has also filed  an
\noriginal application  (O.A.  No.715 of 1997) challenging the select list drawn
\nby the Government of Pondicherry for 44 vacancies.   The  original  applicants
\nhave  also challenged the conditions contained in the notification relating to
\nLDCs with three years of continuous service and in case of ex-servicemen  with
\n15  years  of  defence  service  are  eligible  to  appear for the competitive
\nexamination as illegal and against the recruitment rules.   The  Tribunal,  by
\nthe impugned common order, set aside the select list dated 15-11-1996 prepared
\nby the Government and directed the Government to draw a fresh select-list only
\nto the extent of the number of vacancies notified, i.e.  23.  In so far as the
\nchallenge  made  to  the  conditions contained in the notification relating to
\nLDCs with three years of continuous service and in case of  exservicemen  with
\n15  years  of  defence  service  are  eligible  to  appear for the competitive
\nexamination, the Tribunal held that the said conditions are  not  illegal  and
\narbitrariness.   Aggrieved  by  the  common  order passed by the Tribunal, the
\nGovernment of Pondicherry as well as the aggrieved  original  applicants  have
\nfiled the above writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
                4.    Now,  in  these  writ  petitions,  the  learned  counsel
\nappearing for Pondicherry Government submitted that they  had  relied  on  the
\ninstructions  issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms
\nin their Official Memorandum dated 8\/2\/1982 in  which  certain  clarifications
\nwere issued as to the procedure to be followed for filling up the vacancies.\n<\/p>\n
                5.   Learned  Government  Advocate  would  further submit that
\nnumber of vacancies were  computed  from  the  date  of  notification  of  the
\nrecruitment  process  till  the announcement of the results of the examination
\nand the selection panel was drawn up taking up the increase in the  number  of
\nvacancies.\n<\/p>\n
                6.   More over, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court
\nreported in 1996 4 SCC  319  (PREM  SINGH  AND  OTHERS  Vs.    HARYANA  STATE
\nELECTRICITY  BOARD  AND  OTHERS),  wherein it has been held that the State can
\ndeviate from the advertisement and make appointments on posts  falling  vacant
\nthereafter,  in exceptional circumstances only or in an emergent situation and
\nthat too by taking a policy decision in that behalf.  Even when filling up  of
\nmore  posts than advertised is challenged, the Court may not, while exercising
\nits extraordinary jurisdiction, invalidate the  excess  appointments  and  may
\nmould  the  relief  in  such  a manner as to strike a just balance between the
\ninterest of the State and the interest of persons  seeking  public  employment
\nand the operative portion of the judgment is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                ” ….   it becomes clear that the selection process by way of
\nrequisition and advertisement can be started for clear vacancies and also  for
\nanticipated vacancies  but  not  for future vacancies.  If the requisition and
\nadvertisement are for a certain number of posts only  the  State  cannot  make
\nmore  appointments  than  the number of posts advertised, even though it might
\nhave prepared a select list of more candidates.  The State  can  deviate  from
\nthe  advertisement and make appointments on posts falling vacant thereafter in
\nexceptional circumstances only or in an emergent situation  and  that  too  by
\ntaking a  policy  decision in that behalf.  Even when filling up of more posts
\nthan advertised  is  challenged  the  Court  may  not,  while  exercising  its
\nextraordinary  jurisdiction,  invalidate the excess appointments and may mould
\nthe relief in such a manner as to strike a just balance between  the  interest
\nof the  State  and  the  interest  of persons seeking public employment.  What
\nrelief should be granted in  such  cases  would  depend  upon  the  facts  and
\ncircumstances of each case.” (emphasis supplied) <\/p>\n
                7.   He  further  contended that the petitioner is entitled to
\nfill up the vacancy which was subsequently arose from the date of notification
\ndue to retirement and such a selection cannot be find fault.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  Learned counsel further relied upon the decision  reported
\nin 19 98  (5)  SCC  269 (BENNY T.D.  AND OTHERS Vs.  REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE
\nSOCIETIES AND ANOTHER), wherein the Apex Court has held that     <\/p>\n
                “Though the High Court dismissed the writ petition as well  as
\nthe writ appeals preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge by
\ncoming  to  the  conclusion that there has been violation of SubSection (4) of
\nSection 80 of the Act and Rule 187 of the Rules, the  Registrar  had  annulled
\nthe  resolutions  of the Bank appointing persons to the post of Clerk on other
\ngrounds also and since the legality of the order of the Registrar invalidating
\nthe appointment  made  was  challenged  in  the  High  Court  by  filing  writ
\npetitions, it  is  necessary  to examine the other grounds also.  A perusal of
\nthe order of the Registrar and  the  issues  framed  for  consideration  would
\nindicate  that the Registrar had also struck down the appointment on two other
\ngrounds, namely, the Bank had  appointed  staff  in  excess  of  the  approved
\nstrength  and  secondly  the  advertisement was not in accordance wit Circular
\nInstruction No.18 of 1991 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies.   Coming
\nto the question as to whether appointment had been made in excess of the staff
\nstrength  approved  by  the  Registrar,  it  appears that apart from the above
\nstatement made by the Registrar in his order no material has been  brought  on
\nto the  record  to  support the aforesaid conclusion of the Registrar.  Merely
\nbecause in the advertisement  issued  by  the  Bank  the  probable  number  of
\nvacancies  had  been indicated to be lesser than the number of persons finally
\nappointed, one cannot jump to the conclusion that there  has  been  an  excess
\nappointment beyond  the  staff strength approved by the Registrar.  It is well
\nknown that during the time when an advertisement is issued  and  by  the  time
\nwhen process of selection starts and ultimately appointment orders are issued,
\non  account  of  several  factors  the  number  of posts may be increased, the
\nfactors being retirement of persons on attaining  super  annuation,  death  of
\nseveral  employees, promotion of the employees to higher posts and for variety
\nof other grounds.  In such contingencies, when appointments are made depending
\nupon the vacancies available and in excess of  the  vacancies  advertised,  it
\ncannot be said that the appointment has been made in excess of the strength of
\nthe cadre  approved.    There  is  neither  any allegation nor any material to
\nsustain the finding of the Registrar that in fact appointment has been made in
\nexcess of  the  posts  approved  by  the  Registrar.    The  said  conclusion,
\ntherefore,  must  be  held  to  be  a  conclusion  based  on  no  evidence and
\naccordingly cannot be sustained.  (emphasis supplied).\n<\/p>\n
                9.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
\nrelied on two judgments of the Supreme Court reported in 1997 (8) SCC   4  88
\n(SURENDER SINGH  AND  OTHERS Vs.  STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER), wherein it has
\nbeen held that<\/p>\n
                “waiting  list  cannot  be  used  as  a  perennial  source  of
\nrecruitment for  filling  up  the vacancies not advertised.  The candidates in
\nthe waiting list have no vested right to be appointed except  to  the  limited
\nextent  that  when  a candidate selected against the existing vacancy does not<\/p>\n
join for some reason and the waiting list is still operative.  The  candidates
\nincluded  in  the waiting list cannot claim appointment on the ground that the
\nvacancies were not worked out properly.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  The learned counsel would further rely upon the  decision
\nreported  in  AIR  1996  SUPREME  COURT    976  (ASHOK  KUMAR  AND OTHERS Vs.
\nCHAIRMAN, BANKING SERVICE RECRUITMENT BOARD AND OTHERS) wherein, it  has  been
\nheld  that  “The  recruitment  of  the  candidates  in  excess of the notified
\nvacancies is a denial  and  deprivation  of  the  constitutional  right  under
\nArticle 14  read  with  Article  16  (1)  of  the Constitution.  The procedure
\nadopted, therefore, in appointing the persons kept in the waiting list by  the
\nrespective  Boards, though the vacancies had arisen subsequently without being
\nnotified for  recruitment,  is   unconstitutional.      However,   since   the
\nappointments  have  already  been  made  and  none  was  impleaded, we are not
\ninclined  to  interfere  with  these   matters   adversely   affecting   their
\nappointments.\n<\/p>\n
                11.   In  view  of  the  above,  the  learned  counsel for the
\nrespondents vehemently submitted that if a particular number of vacancies have
\nbeen notified, the selection list drawn to the extent  of  that  vacancy  will
\nremain valid  till  it  is  exhausted.    When  the impugned selection list is
\ntainted by illegality, the question of application of  O.M.    Dated  8\/2\/1982
\ndoes not  apply.    There  is  nothing  against  the directions of the Central
\nGovernment in the impugned order of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
                12.   Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  respondents would
\nfurther submit that the decision in BINNI’s CASE 1998 (5) SCC    269  has  no
\nrelevance  to the case of these respondents, as the same relates to the extent
\nof reservation.  In so far as the selection list drawn  for  44  vacancies  as
\nagainst  21  vacancies  notified,  it  is palpably illegal and against the law
\ndeclared by the Supreme Court.  By having drawn this selection list double the
\nvacancies notified including vacancies that arose long after the crucial  date
\nfixed  for  eligibility,  opportunity  to  persons  like these respondents who
\nbecome qualified for participating the selection subsequent  to  1\/7\/1994  has
\nbeen denied.  The Honourable Tribunal has rightly held that the selection list
\nso  prepared  should  be  set  aside  and  confined  to the number of notified
\nvacancies.\n<\/p>\n
                13.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the  case  and
\nafter  careful  perusal  of  the  order  passed by the Tribunal, we are of the
\nopinion that the Tribunal has rightly  rejected  the  challenge  made  to  the
\nconditions  contained in the notification relating to LDCs with three years of
\ncontinuous service and in case of  ex-servicemen  with  15  years  of  defence
\nservice are  eligible  to appear for the competitive examination.  We entirely
\nagree with the reasons given by the Tribunal while rejecting the contention of
\nthe original  applicants  that  the  criteria  of  eligibility  fixed  by  the
\nGovernment  in  case  of LDCs and the ex-servicemen are illegal and arbitrary.
\nTherefore, the writ petitions challenging that part of the Tribunal’s order is
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                14.     Now coming to the order passed by the Tribunal setting
\naside  the select list dated 15-11-1996 and directing the Government to draw a
\nfresh select list for the notified 23 vacancies, we are of the considered view
\nthat the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be  quashed.    Though  the
\ngeneral rule is not to prepare a select list with more number of candidates as
\nagainst  the number of vacancies notified in the advertisement, but in view of
\nthe aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, in rarest of rare cases when the
\nGovernment has taken a policy decision to meet the  administrative  exigencies
\nand  prepared  a  select  list  to  fill  up more number of vacancies than the
\nnotified one, such a select list cannot be interfered with.  In t he  case  on
\nhand, though the notification was issued in the April, 1994, it took more than
\ntwo and a half years to complete the entire selection process in August, 1996,
\nand  in  the interregnum, a large number of vacancies arose due to retirement,
\netc.  and the vacancy as on  the  date  of  preparation  of  the  select  list
\nincreased to 44 and, therefore, the Government prepared the select list for 44
\nvacancies from among the successful candidates who  <\/p>\n
appeared for the competitive examination.  It is further stated by the learned
\nGovernment Pleader that pursuant to the select list prepared all the 44
\ncandidates have been appointed as UDCs and they are working for more than nine
\nyears.  He further submitted that except one private candidate  and  one  LDC,
\nall  the  original  applicants concerned were promoted as UDCs and, therefore,
\nthey are not aggrieved persons as on date.  If at this  length  of  time,  the
\nselect  list  is  quashed  that  would  cause serious hardship not only to the
\nselected candidates but also the administration of the Government.  Therefore,
\nwe are of the considered view that  the  Tribunal  completely  went  wrong  in
\nsetting  aside the select list and directing the preparation of a fresh select
\nlist.  Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is quashed.  The writ  petitions
\nchallenging that part of the Tribunal’s order are allowed.\n<\/p>\n
                15.   In  the  result, Writ Petition Nos.5525 and 6046 of 2000
\nare allowed and Writ Petition Nos.6503 and 6504 of 2000  are  dismissed.    No
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
mvs.\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Chief Secretary to Government
\nUnion of India
\nChief Secretariat Buildings
\nPondicherry.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Deputy Secretary to Government
\nDepartment of Personnel and
\nAdministrative Reforms
\nChief Secretariat Buildings
\nPondicherry.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Registrar
\nCentral Administrative Tribunal
\nHigh Court Buildings
\nChennai 600 104.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Union Of India vs The Central on 5 July, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05\/07\/2006 CORAM THE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO and THE HON’BLE Ms.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA Writ Petition No.5525 of 2000 Writ Petition No.6046 of 2000 Writ Petition No.6503 of 2000 and Writ Petition No.6504 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33773","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Union Of India vs The Central on 5 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Union Of India vs The Central on 5 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-04T21:31:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Union Of India vs The Central on 5 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-04T21:31:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2296,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006\",\"name\":\"The Union Of India vs The Central on 5 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-04T21:31:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Union Of India vs The Central on 5 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Union Of India vs The Central on 5 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Union Of India vs The Central on 5 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-04T21:31:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Union Of India vs The Central on 5 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-04T21:31:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006"},"wordCount":2296,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006","name":"The Union Of India vs The Central on 5 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-04T21:31:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-on-5-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Union Of India vs The Central on 5 July, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33773","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33773"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33773\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33773"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33773"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33773"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}