TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a select panel prepared beyond the three advertised vacancies could be operated for future vacancies in the absence of any statutory rule or advertisement authorising such a course; (ii) Whether the High Court could, in review jurisdiction, sustain directions based on such a panel and thereby confer an enforceable right to appointment.
Issue (i): Whether a select panel prepared beyond the three advertised vacancies could be operated for future vacancies in the absence of any statutory rule or advertisement authorising such a course.
Analysis: Recruitment has to conform to the governing rules and to the terms of the advertisement. The advertisement notified only three vacancies and did not state that a separate panel would be prepared for future vacancies. The mere preparation of a larger panel did not create a right to appointment against future vacancies when no rule permitted such extension. A select list or panel cannot be given effect beyond the notified vacancies unless the applicable statutory framework authorises it. The ordinary life of a panel is limited, and the administrative circular relied upon did not create a universal rule extending that life.
Conclusion: The panel could not lawfully be operated for future vacancies, and the respondents had no enforceable right to appointment from that panel.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could, in review jurisdiction, sustain directions based on such a panel and thereby confer an enforceable right to appointment.
Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reappreciate the merits or to create a legal right where none exists. The respondent had no subsisting legal right to appointment, and mandamus could not be issued contrary to the governing law. The High Court's review order proceeded on an erroneous approach by treating the future panel as enforceable despite the absence of any statutory basis and despite the exhaustion of the notified vacancies.
Conclusion: The review order was unsustainable and the directions founded on it could not be maintained.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's review judgment was set aside, and the cancellation of the panel was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: A select panel cannot be operated beyond the vacancies advertised or beyond the period permitted by law, and review jurisdiction cannot be used to confer an appointment right contrary to the governing rules.
TaxTMI 
