TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (9) TMI 569
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een recommended by the Board. Appointment letters were issued to 195 successful candidates, out of the 200 candidates recommended by the Commisson. By a Memo. No. 323 dated 21.02.1992, an appointment letter was sent to Respondent asking him to join the post within fifteen days. He failed to join. Allegedly, on 20.07.1994, he requested Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, to issue an appointment letter to him, stating : "I came to know that the Department had appointed maximum candidates till date and the appointment proceeding is going on for the remaining advertised 225 posts. My Serial Number is more above in the recommended merit list and junior persons to me have been appointed but I have not received any appointment lette....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the purported representations made by him in the years, 1994, 1995 and 2000 were not available in the Department, stating : "That it is further started that in the month of December, 1999, the petitioner had submitted another representation in this Department, the case of the petitioner was referred to the Law Department, Government of Bihar, for opinion and the opinion of the learned Advocate General, Bihar was also sought and tendered. In the light of the opinion given by the Law Department/learned Advocate General, the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide Annexure-5 of the writ application." 5. The said writ petition was taken up for hearing in 2004. The High Court allowed the same, stating : "While he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....those who were below him in the selection list had already been permitted to join. Admittedly, he came to know thereabout in 1994. He allegedly filed a representation and although no reply thereto was given, he did not take any step soon thereafter. He filed another representation only in 1995. He filed the writ petition after a long period i.e. in 2001 when his purported representation filed in the year 1999 was rejected. 9. In the aforementioned situation, in our opinion, he did not have any legal right to be appointed. Life of a panel, it is well known, remains valid for a year. Once it lapses, unless an appropriate order is issued by the State, no appointment can be made out of the said panel. 10. In Madan Lal and Others v. State ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ule 26 of the Recruitment Rules the conclusion is irresistible that a select list prepared under the Recruitment Rules has its life only for one year from the date of the preparation of the list and it expires thereafter" 12. Yet again in Surinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(1997) 8 SCC 488], this Court stated the law thus : "Prem Singh case was decided on the facts of that case and those facts do not hold good in the present case. In the case of Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. this Court has explained the scope and intent of a waiting list and how it is to operate in service jurisprudence. It cannot be used as a perennial source of recruitment filling up the vacancies not advertised. The Court also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a on misplaced sympathy. 69. In Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh18 it is stated: (SCC p. 144, paras 36-37) '36. We have no doubt in our mind that sympathy or sentiment by itself cannot be a ground for passing an order in relation whereto the appellants miserably fail to establish a legal right. It is further trite that despite an extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily would not pass an order which would be in contravention of a statutory provision. 37. As early as in 1911, Farewell, L.J. in Latham v. Richard Johnson & Nephew Ltd. observed: (All ER p. 123 E) "We must be very careful not to allow our sympathy with the infant plai....