PURUSHOTTAM Vs. CHAIRMAN M S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lease granted.

(2.) These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 3rd August, 1995 refusing to issue a Mandamus to the respondents to recruit him to the post to which he was selected as well as against the order refusing to review the said judgment dated 3rd August, 1995. The appellant undisputably was selected for the post of Assistant Personnel Officer meant for a Scheduled Tribe category. He had produced the certificate of the Magistrate indicating that he belongs to Halba caste which is undoubtedly the Scheduled Tribe, but the employer in accordance with the procedure prescribed referred his case to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification. The said Committee being of the opinion that the appellant does not belong to Halba caste denied him the right to be employed notwithstanding his selection for the post in question. The said order of the Scrutiny Committee was upheld in appeal but a Writ Petition being carried the High Court in W.P. No. 445/1993 came to the conclusion that the appellant does belong to the Halba caste and, therefore, he was kept illegally out of employment. The High Court, therefore, directed the employer - Maharashtra State Electricity Board to consider the case of the appellant for appointment to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer for which he had been duly selected. After the said judgment the appellant approached the authority but the authority not having given the appointment in question, he again moved the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court was persuaded to accept the contention of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board that in the meantime somebody else has been appointed to the post and as such there is no vacancy and further in terms of Regulation 29 the panel of selected persons in which the appellant was included has expired and, therefore, there is no legal right of the appellant to be enforced with by issuance of a Mandamus.

(3.) Mr. Deshpande the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the appellant having been duly selected for the post in question and being illegally kept out of the appointment on account of so-called decision of this Screening Committee, once the High Court reversed the decision of the Screening Committee his right to be appointed cannot be taken away on the ground either of expiry of the panel under Regulation 29 or that non-availability of post, some other person having been appointed. Mr. Bhasme, the learned counsel appearing for the Board, on the other hand, contended that subsequent to the earlier order of the High Court, the appellant did move in a Contempt Petition and that Contempt Petition was dropped which would substantiate the stand of the Board, that they have not violated the Courts direction and, therefore, in the absence of any vacancy the question of any appointment to the post would not arise.