M P ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the appellant, respondent was selected to the post of Testing Assistant Grade II (Operator).

(2.) Out of a panel of 38 selected persons only 22 persons were appointed. The respondent who remained without being appointed filed a writ petition before the High Court. A learned single Judge of the High Court following the decision of the same Court in Shivsingh vs. State of M. P., 1988 (1) MPWN 24 held that in the absence of any statutory rule requiring waiting list to lapse beyond prescribed limit, the action of the appellant is arbitrary and on that basis gave a direction to consider the case of the respondent for appointment as per law declared in the said decision. The matter was carried in appeal. In appeal the view expressed by the learned single Judge was reiterated and the appeal stood dismissed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

(3.) Shri V. R. Reddy, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants brought to our notice that the selections had been made pursuant to the procedure prescribed by the M.P.E.B. Circular No. PD. IV/1028 dated 9-12-1968. That circular not only provides the mode of selection but also that the panel prepared would be for a specific period not exceeding one year and whenever that period expires, a fresh panel should be prepared and the unoperated portion of the earlier panel stands revoked. Shri Reddy submitted that, the Board had acted on the basis of this provision and, therefore, did not propose to appoint all the candidates selected and included in the panel; that, the case of the appellant stands entirely on a different footing from the one dealt with by the High Court. The decision in Shivsingh vs. State of M. P., 1988 (1) MPWN 24 stood upon the language of the Rules for selection and appointment and which did not provide any lapsing of the list after a particular time limit. In those circumstances the Court directed that those in the waiting list should also be appointed; that, the principle in Shivsingh's case cannot be applied in the present case and drew our attention to the decision of this Court in Rakesh Ranjan Verma and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (1992) 2 Suppl. SCC 343 in support of this contention.