(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1. The present appeals are preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 15.09.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications No. 10915 and 10996 of 2010 as well as Special Civil Application No. 9323 of 2011 whereby the writ petitions were dismissed.
2. The petitioners' names were called from the office of Employment Exchange for selection procedure undertaken by respondent-Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. (in short "P.G.V.C.L") for the post of Vidyut Sahayak (Jr. Assistant) on a fixed remuneration in the pay-scale of Rs.3400-100-4100-125-5350-150-6550-175-8300 and the said pay-scale was to be revised after successful completion of three years as Vidyut Sahayak. When the said requisition was sent to Employment Exchange, no specific number of vacancies were earmarked. However, candidates were also to submit application personally in the prescribed formate along with two sets of attested testimonials. After the written test was conducted, the respondent P.G.V.C.L. prepared selection list for the post of Vidyut Sahayak (Junior Assistant) of 76 candidates and a waiting list of about 396 candidates.
2.1 It is case of the petitioners that though select list was operated by the P.G.V.C.L. and for some vacancies even wait listed candidates were also offered appointment but without exhausting the waiting list as a whole it came to be scrapped and new advertisement was issued for undertaking fresh recruitment. A representation was made to the respondent authorities but no favourable response was received and the authority had decided to proceed further with the new advertisement. They had no other option but to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence writ petitions were filed challenging unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of powers of P.G.V.C.L. in scrapping the waiting list and not filling up the vacancies in existence from the candidates so wait listed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petitions. Being aggrieved by the said order in the writ petitions, the present appeals are preferred.
3. Mr.
S.A. Qureshi, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the impugned action of the respondent-company in initiating fresh process of recruitment without exhausting the existing waiting list and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants is based on extraneous considerations and mala fide intentions.
3.1 Mr.
Qureshi submitted that the respondent has not followed the guidelines issued by it in the year 1974 and also not informed the appellants about cancellation of the wait list. He submitted that the impugned judgement and order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Mr.
Dipak Dave, learned advocate appearing for the respondent company has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that no interference is called for by this Court. He has drawn the attention of this Court to para 8 of the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that selected candidates were appointed on 17.9.2009 and 90 candidates from the waiting list were also appointed on 16.11.2009 pursuant to the written test undertaken on 9.8.2009 and, therefore, the life of select list which was of a duration of one year was over by 8.8.2010.
4.1 Mr.
Dave has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Das vs. Union of India reported in 1991(3) SCC 47 and submitted that the selected candidate has no indefeasible right to get appointment. He submitted that after the wait list was scrapped fresh recruitment has taken place and around 74 candidates joined on and around 27.09.2011 and around 15 candidates joined on and around 17.10.2011.
5. We have perused the papers on record including the impugned judgement and order. The learned Single Judge in para 8 of the impugned judgement and order observed as under:
"8. On perusal of the record of writ petitions and submissions made by learned advocates for the parties, the following undisputed fact arises namely (i) when the applications of the petitioners were invited and names were called from employment exchange, number of vacancies were not specified by respondent-P.G.V.C.L. (ii) the recruitment process undertaken by P.G.V.C.L., was in pursuance to powers vested into P.G.V.C.L. as per regulations and various circulars issued from time to time (3) on passing written test as prescribed 76 candidates were found to be successful and were placed in the selection list and all of them were offered appointment. The petitioners of these writ petitions were placed in waiting list for the post of Junior Assistant (Vidyut Sahayak) and in all 396 candidates were placed in waiting list. That, circulars/communications addressed by Establishment Officer of Predecessor of P.G.V.C.L. and G.E.B. on 14.8.1974 pertaining to nomination of selection to the candidates provide that in case of direct recruitment, the successful candidate whose name appear in the select list should be informed of the resolution and their serial numbers on which their names appear and it is to be clear that mere inclusion of the names in the select list, no assurance was given for appointment but it will depend on the vacancies arising and there such list would be valid for one year only from the date of selection. On the facts of this case, selected candidates were appointed on 17.9.2009 and 90 candidates from the waiting list were also appointed on 16.11.2009 pursuant to the written test undertaken on 9.8.2009 and, therefore, the life of select list which was of a duration of one year was over by 8.8.2010."
6. The petitioners' names were called from the office of Employment Exchange for selection procedure undertaken by respondent-Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. It is borne out from the records that pursuant to the written test conducted on 9.8.2009, all 76 successful candidates placed in the select list were given appointment on 17.9.2009 and further 90 vacancies/post of Junior Assistant were filled in by appointing candidates from waiting list in seriatim on 16.11.2009. Thus, out of applications invited from employment exchange, the P.G.V.C.L. has filled in 166 vacancies against available vacancy of
160. The respondent-P.G.V.C.L. has not only offered employment to all selectees but continued to operate even waiting list and the said exercise is a procedure adopted by P.G.V.C.L. in consonance with decisions of the Apex Court and is not unreasonable,arbitrary or discriminatory or contrary to law. Moreover, the names of the appellants are at the far end of the wait list.
7. As far as the guidelines issued by the respondent company are concerned the same relate to 14.8.1974 issued by the predecessor G.E.B which remained in force about life of the select list and in case of direct recruitment the successful candidates whose names appear in the select list were not assured about the appointment and the list would be valid only for one year from the date of selection. As the duration of the waiting list was exhausted at the end of one year, a new advertisement was issued in the newspaper on 26.8.2010. Moreover, pursuant to the fresh recruitment, new candidates have joined and therefore also the appellants have missed the bus. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. The learned Single Judge has dealt with the matter in detail and has passed a reasoned order which does not call for any interference by this court.
8. In the premises aforesaid, appeals are devoid of any merits and are accordingly dismissed.
9. In view of the order passed in Appeals, the Civil Applications shall not survive and hence, Civil Applications also stand disposed of.
(V.M.
SAHAI, J.) (K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top