20 September 1996
Supreme Court
Download

STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs BIR SINGH

Bench: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
Case number: C.A. No.-012286-012286 / 1996
Diary number: 64033 / 1995
Advocates: PREM MALHOTRA Vs


1

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

PETITIONER: U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP.THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOBARDHAN & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/09/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  Allahabad High Court made on August 31, 1995 in Writ Petition 6727/93.  For the recruitment in the year 1980, the Regional Manager of the appellant-corporation had prepared a waiting list  of 414  candidates to be recruited during peak season or  during   suspension of  any conductors or against leave vacancy for 15 days or one month. It would appear that the list  continued for  1980-81, 1981-82  and 1982-83.  The appointments were  to be  made during  the  peak  season  by notification in the newspapers and whoever would come within 7 days would be given appointment. Thereafter, in respect of absentees, seniority  was not  being adhered  to and juniors were given appointments. It would appear that the respondent is one of the candidates placed in the seniority list. Since he had  not received  the intimation, he did not join during the  peak   seasons.  He  filed  a  writ  petition  in  1993 challenging his  non-appoint, hetook  the  plea  that  those juniors to  him were already appointed and some of them were even regularised. The High Court has accepted the contention and given  the direction  to appoint  him  to  the  post  of conductor  since   some  of  his  juniors  had  come  to  be appointed. Thus, this appeal by special leave.      Shri   Pradeep   Misra,   learned   counsel   for   the Corporation, has  contended that the Corporation has evolved the principle  of wait list to meet the contingencies during peak season  etc. The  wait-list, for  the year 1980 in fact was cancelled  in July  19, 1980;  the writ  petitions which came to  be filed  against the  cancellation were dismissed; the respondent  filed  the writ petition  for the first time in 1983; from 1988 onwards, the wait-list procedure has been dispensed with  and,  therefore,  the  High  Court  was  not justified  in   giving  the  direction.  Shri  Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that since the newspaper had  no circulation  in the region in which he was living, he could not appear and join the post; but since his juniors came  to be  appointed and  some  of  them  benefit. Though we find force in the contention of Shri Pradeep Misra

2

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

that the candidates have no right to the post since they are in  the    wait-list,  since  the  Corporation  has  already appointed some  of the  juniors who  are in the waiting list necessarily, before  following that  procedure, they  should have given intimation to those candidates who were placed in the waiting  list; if even then they do not turn up, then it could  be   taken  that   they  have  waived  the  right  of appointment. But  in this case, it might be that a candidate who was  in the  waiting list was under the expectation that he would get an order of appointment from the Corporation as and   when the  vacancy arises  and may be he could not read the newspaper,  though published. Under these circumstances, we think  that  after  the  cancellation  of  the  wait-list procedure, though  no one has a right; those who were on the wait list need to be considered in accordance with the rules in view  of the  fact that their juniors had got appointment and were  even regularised.  Therefore,  the  appellant  are directed to consider the case of the respondent as a special case and make appointment according to the procedure.      Any other  persons who  had  not  approached  or  would approach the  Court belatedly,  would not be entitled to any relief.      The appeal is accordingly disposed of No. costs.