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

PETITIONER: DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MINERALS), DALONTGUNJ CIRCLE ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MUSTAK ALI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1586            1996 SCC  (2)  23  JT 1996 (1)    77        1996 SCALE  (1)153

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1577 OF 1995.          (Arising out of SLP (C) No.15440 of 1994)                          O R D E R      Though notice  was  served  on  the  respondents,  none appeared either in person or through counsel.      Leave granted in both the special leave petitions. C.A. No.1576 of 1996 @SLP [C] No.5321/94      The only  controversy is  whether the  High  Court  was right in  its impugned  order in CWJC No.25/92 made on March 11, 1993  to direct  the appellants  to implement  the  list prepared by  the Deputy  Commissioner, Palamau at Dalontgunj to appoint respondents in this case. There appears to be two procedures prevailing  in the State of Bihar, namely, Deputy Commissioner or  District  Magistrate  to  prepare  list  of eligible candidates  according to the procedure provided for appointment of  Class III  and Class  IV  employees  to  the vacancies existing  in the  District. Equally,  instructions were given for the Department of the Mines and Geology which is now  annexed as  Annexure 2  in the  paper book. It would indicate in  para 3  there in that a committee consisting of (i) Deputy  Director  (Geology)  -Chairman,  (ii)  Assistant Director (Geology)  of the  Circle -  Member, (iii) District Welfare Officer  of the  District where the circle office is located  -   Member,   (iv)   One   officer   of   Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes  - Member,  were required  to select candidates for appointment as Class III & Class IV employees of the  appellants-Department. Instead  of acting on it, the appellate Court  directed to appoint the candidates found in the list  sent by  the District  Magistrate. The question is whether the  Department  is  bound  by  the  directions  and appoint candidate  from the  list  prepared  by  the  Deputy Commissioner or the District Magistrate, as the case may be? If  it   is  so  held,  the  needs  of  each  Department  of

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

Government,  when  required  to  select  candidates  and  to prepare  the  select  list  after  following  the  selection procedure  and   recruitment  of  Class  III  and  Class  IV employees would  be frustrated  and the prescribed procedure would be  rendered surpluses  and otios.  Our answer is yes. The Department  was to  constitute a committee for selection of such  candidates and  to make appointment of the selected candidates selected  by the committee. Thus we can visaulise that, as  regards the  Department of Mines and Geology, they are regulated  by yet  another prescribed procedure than was done by the district authorities to select the candidates as per requirement  of the  Department.  Deputy  Commission  or District Magistrate,  though is  competent to  prepare  list after due  selection, it  would be  for  the  Department  to select and  appoint according  to rules.  We are  of further view that  acceptance of list of candidates sent by District Magistrate would  frustrate the regulations and acts counter productive to  step up  appointment of  persons  not  either qualified or eligible for the posts of the other Department. It would  not be a recruitment Board constituted for all the Departments. Under  these circumstances,  the High Court was wholly unjustified  in issuing  direction to follow the list prepared by the Deputy Commissioner. The said directions are set aside.      It would  be open  to the  appellants  to  select  such candidates according  to rules. It would call the names from employment exchange and also by publication in newspaper and to select  the eligible  and fit  candidates for 8 vacancies available in  the Department  or any  post available  as  on today.  It   should  be   done  after   publication  of   an advertisement in  that behalf  calling for  application  and also calling  names from  employment exchange. The Committee should  consider  their  cases  and  select  the  candidates according to  rules and then appointment order shall be made thereafter. C.A. No.--------of 1996 @ SLP [C] NO.15440 of 1994      This appeal  relates to  the appoint  of Class  III and Class IV  employees in Labour and Employment Department. For the same  reasons as  given above,  the directions issued by the High  Court were  wholly unjustified  in law and are set aside.      In the result, both the appeals are allowed. No costs.