http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2890  of  2001

PETITIONER: VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHAIRMAN, SCHOOL SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/04/2001

BENCH: M.B. Shah & S.N. Variava

JUDGMENT:

S. N. VARIAVA, J.

Leave granted.

Heard parties. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   This  Appeal is against a Judgment dated 4th July, 2000. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

   The  Respondents  had  issued an  advertisement  in  the newspaper  for filling up vacancies in various categories of services in Schools run by them.  The Appellants had applied for  the posts pursuant to the said advertisement.  They had appeared  in  written test as well as personality  test.   A panel  was  then prepared.  Appellants No.  1, 3 and 4  were empanelled.  Appellant No.  2 was not empanelled at all.

   As appointment letters were not issued to the Appellants they  filed a Writ Petition in the Calcutta High Court which was  allowed by a single Judge by Order dated 22nd December, 1999.   However,  in Appeal the Division Bench has,  by  the impugned  order dated 4th July, 2000, set aside the Order of the  single  Judge  and dismissed the Writ Petition  on  the ground  that  the vacancies which had been  advertised  were tentative.   The Division Bench has held that there were  no vacancies  and, therefore, no direction could be issued  for filling up the vacancies.

   Appellant No.  2 was not empanelled and, as such, has no right  to  make any claim to be appointed.   Therefore,  the Appeal  so  far  as  Appellant No.  2  is  concerned  stands dismissed.

   The  Appellants  No.  1, 3 and 4 were  empanelled.   Mr. Ghosh  appearing for the Respondents states that the life of panel,  so  far as General Category is concerned,  has  been extended  to  2nd February, 2002.  He states that there  are vacancies  and  Appellants  No.  3 and 4 will  be  appointed against  those  vacancies.   In view of this  statement  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Order  of the High Court, so far as Appellants No.  3 and  4 are concerned, is set aside.

   Appellant  No.   1  belongs to the  OBC  Category.   For reasons  best known to the Respondents, even though the life of  the panel for General Category has been extended to  2nd February,  2002, the same has not been done for the panel of the OBC Category.  It has been pointed out to us that in the OBC  Category there were vacancies, yet Appellant No.  1 was not  appointed  and the panel allowed to lapse.  We  see  no justification  for  not  appointing Appellant  No.   1  when vacancies  were available.  We also see no justification for not  extending  the  panel life of the  OBC  Category.   We, therefore,  direct  that Appellant No.  1 will be  appointed against  the  vacancies  which  are  available  in  the  OBC Category.

   With  the above directions, the Appeal of Appellants No. 1,  3  and  4 is allowed.  To that extent the Order  of  the Division  Bench stands set aside.  There will be no Order as to costs.