1996 (4) TMI 121 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court Clarifies Validity of Select Lists in Recruitment Matters

The Supreme Court addressed challenges to the Allahabad High Court's directions in recruitment matters after select list expiry. The Court emphasized Rule ... Validity of select list for recruitment - mandamus to enforce appointment - mandamus cannot compel action contrary to statutory rule - life of a select list under statutory recruitment rules - condonation of delay in filing special leave petition - exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136Validity of select list for recruitment - life of a select list under statutory recruitment rules - A select list prepared under the Recruitment Rules is valid for one year from the date of selection and expires thereafter. - HELD THAT: - Rule 26 of the Subordinate Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985 expressly provides that the select list 'shall hold good for a period of one year from the date of selection.' Having regard to this statutory provision, the Court held that the life of a select list prepared on 4-4-1987 expired on the expiry of one year from that date. The High Court's contrary conclusion, based on earlier decisions and without applying the statutory provision, was held to be erroneous. [Paras 9]The select list prepared on 4-4-1987 expired after one year and did not subsist thereafter.Mandamus to enforce appointment - mandamus cannot compel action contrary to statutory rule - The High Court was not justified in issuing a mandamus directing appointment of persons from the 1987 select list after its expiry. - HELD THAT: - A writ of mandamus may be issued to enforce a legal right or to require performance of a legal duty existing on the date of the petition, but it cannot be employed to compel the Government to act contrary to a statutory provision. Since the rights of persons on the 1987 select list had ceased on expiry of the one-year period, no subsisting legal right existed which could be enforced by mandamus. Appointments made by the Appointing Authority after expiry of the list, though criticised as contrary to the Rules, do not create a legal right enforceable by mandamus under Article 226. [Paras 10]The mandamus issued by the High Court to appoint the respondents from the expired 1987 list was unsustainable and was set aside.Condonation of delay in filing special leave petition - exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 - Delay in filing the Special Leave Petition was condoned and this Court invoked Article 136 despite availability of an intra-court remedy. - HELD THAT: - The Court accepted that bureaucratic processing may explain delay and, having regard to the merits, condoned the delay in filing the petition. Although ordinarily this Court refrains from invoking Article 136 where an appeal to a Division Bench lies, that is a self-imposed restriction and does not oust jurisdiction. Given the pendency of the matter and the patent error by the High Court, the Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 to entertain the appeal. [Paras 7, 8]Delay was condoned and the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 136 to hear the appeals.Final Conclusion: The appeals are allowed; the impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside and the writ petitions filed by the respondents are dismissed; no order as to costs. Issues:Challenge to direction of High Court in recruitment matter after expiry of select list.Analysis:The judgment involves two cases challenging directions of the Allahabad High Court in recruitment matters after the expiry of select lists. The question of law in both cases is whether the High Court was justified in issuing a mandamus to the appellant for recruitment of respondents who were in the Select List of 1987 after the list had expired. The recruitment/selection process is governed by the Subordinate Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985. The Appointing Authority determines vacancies, invites applications, and prepares a merit list. The High Court, based on earlier decisions, held that select lists do not expire after one year and directed appointments. The appellant contended that the High Court erred in law and the vacancy position was correctly stated by the State Government.The respondents alleged that the Appointing Authority did not fill vacancies despite the select list of 1987, leading to mandamus requests. The appellant argued that the select list became inoperative after one year and no vacancies existed as claimed. The High Court, without focusing on the Statutory Rules, directed appointments based on vacancies occurring after the select list expiry. The appellant challenged this direction, citing Rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules which states that select lists are valid for one year. The High Court's reliance on past appointments beyond one year was contested by the appellant.The Supreme Court addressed technical objections raised by the respondents, including delay and availability of appeal to the Division Bench. The Court condoned the delay, considering the merits of the case. The Court also clarified that the availability of an appeal to the Division Bench does not restrict invoking jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court then delved into the merits of the case, emphasizing Rule 26 and the expiration of select lists after one year. The Court highlighted that mandamus can only be issued when a legal right subsists, which was not the case after the select list expiry. The Court disapproved of appointments made contrary to Statutory Rules and set aside the High Court's directions, dismissing the Writ Petitions without costs.