ADMINISTRATOR U T OF LAKSHADWEEP Vs. M MUSTHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Original Petitions were filed by the Administration of Union Territory of Lakshadweep impugning a common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kochi Bench, Ext. P7. Few facts are necessary for disposal of these cases. Those are as follows:

(2.) THERE were 39 vacancies of L.D. Clerks in the service of the petitioner Administration. The vacancies were reported to the Employment Exchange in the Union Territory. The Employment Exchange recommended altogether 425 candidates. The recruitment process includes written and typing test. A minimum prescribed speed in typewriting was also essential for appointment. All the candidates were issued with intimations to participate in the said tests. All of them were subjected to both the tests. Those who had passed in the practical test as well as the written test were ranked in the top of the list. All others were also included in the list. Appointment orders were issued to 40 candidates altogether, two among them being physically handicapped candidates. There upon the contesting respondents in this cases who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, but did not succeed in the typing test approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, contending that there was a list of altogether 164 candidates, who shall be appointed to the available, existing and ensuing vacancies. There was a dispute raised by the Administration that the list produced by the said respondents before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1521/94 and connected cases was not the rank list. Any how, the said O.As were disposed of as per Ext. P4 with certain directions, considering the list produced by the said respondents containing 164 names, as the select list. The directions issued were as follows:

(3.) IT is contended that this direction could not have been issued by the Tribunal, as only 39 vacancies have been reported. Even if the list contained 164 candidates as contended by the said respondents, the administration did not have the liability to follow the list for the vacancies, over and above those notified to the Employment Exchange. It is further submitted that, even if one's name is included in the select list he does not acquire any right of appointment. Therefore, the direction of the Tribunal in Ext. P7 to follow the list and to effect appointment is bad. It is further submitted that any appointment in excess of the notified vacancies will result in deprivation of the rights guaranteed under Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, to other candidates who may aspire for the subsequent vacancies, that may arise in future. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decisions reported in Ashok Kumar and Others v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and Others, 1996 (1) SCC 283, Sanjay Bhattacharjee v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1997 SC 2179, Madan Lal and Others v. State of J & K and Others, 1995 (3) SCC 486 and Kerala Agricultural University v. Gopinathan Unnithan (1996 (1) KLT 344).