Expired select list cannot ground mandamus; court reiterates subsisting legal right and lawful duty requirements.

Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because delay must be assessed on the facts of each case, and movement of the matter through official channels may constitute sufficient cause where the case otherwise has merit; the availability of an intra-court appeal did not bar jurisdiction under Article 136, though it was a relevant restraint. A writ of mandamus could not be issued to require appointments from a select list that had ceased to operate after one year under the recruitment rules, because mandamus enforces only a subsisting legal right and lawful duty. The expired select list conferred no enforceable right, and prior irregular appointments from it could not validate the claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned and the Court should decline interference because an intra-court appeal was available; and (ii) whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to appoint candidates from a select list that had ceased to operate after one year under the recruitment rules.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned and the Court should decline interference because an intra-court appeal was available.

Analysis: The Court held that delay has to be judged on the facts of each case and that the movement of a matter through official channels may constitute sufficient cause when the case otherwise has merit. It also held that the existence of a special appeal before the Division Bench does not oust the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, though it may ordinarily be a factor of restraint.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the Court declined to non-suit the appellant on the ground of availability of an alternative intra-court remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to appoint candidates from a select list that had ceased to operate after one year under the recruitment rules.

Analysis: Rule 26 of the Subordinate Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985 made the select list operative only for one year from the date of selection. A mandamus can issue only to enforce a subsisting legal right and a corresponding legal duty, and it cannot direct action contrary to law. Since the list prepared on 4-4-1987 had expired before the writ petitions were filed, the respondents had no subsisting right to appointment on the basis of that list. Prior irregular appointments made from an expired list could not create an enforceable right in their favour.

Conclusion: The mandamus was unjustified and the direction to appoint the respondents was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the directions of the High Court were set aside, and the writ petitions stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A select list that is made statutorily valid only for a fixed period expires on the completion of that period, and after such expiry no mandamus can be issued to compel appointment from that list because no subsisting legal right survives.

---