ARVIND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises for consideration in this writ petition, filed by a doctor, who had been selected and was placed at serial number 8 in the panel of the list prepared by a selection committee for appointing doctors in State Medical Colleges, is as to whether a candidate in the panel prepared by the Committee has a right to be considered and appointed against a vacancy which arises before cancellation of the list.

(2.) TO comprehend controversy in dispute it is necessary to mention that an advertisement was issued in February, 1984 by Director of Medical Education and Training for making ad-hoc appointments on the post of lecturer in various specialities including medicines, in State Medical Colleges. Although advertisement did not mention the number of vacancies which were likely to be filled, but from counter-affidavit and supplementary affidavit it appears Cabinet had taken a decision to appoint 4 ad-hoc lecturers against four vacancies, two permanent and two likely to occur in course of year. For this purpose Selection Committee prepared a panel consisting of nine persons. Out of these first two were selected for King George Medical College, Lucknow. They preferred to join there. Therefore, the third candidate was offered the first post, second went to the 4th, third to fifth and fourth to sixth. One Dr. Ravi Mishra was also ad-hoc lecturer in Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, which is amongst the State Medical Colleges. He was selected for King George Medical College, Lucknow. Therefore, another vacancy arose as Dr. Misra left Moti Lal Nehru Medical College. From Supplementary counter-affidavit it appears that one vacancy arose due to Dr. Ravi Mishra's joining at King George Medical College and another vacancy arose due to transfer of a lecturer from Meerut to Agra as the Reader of that College was appointed as Professor in newly created post and third vacancy arose due to termination of services of Dr. Bagga. What is claimed is that since vacancies of Dr. Bagga and other one due to transfer of a lecturer from Meerut to Agra became available in year 1985 they were not relevant for panel prepared for vacancies in 1984. If this stand of opposite parties is correct then petitioner obviously shall have no ease. But closer examination of the facts indicates that there is no substance in this stand, rather 84 and 85 have been attempted to be confused. It has nowhere been mentioned as to on what date list was prepared but this much is admitted that fresh advertisement was issued in February, 1985 and panel prepared on selection of 1984 was cancelled on 21st July, 1985. Question, therefore, is whether a person from panel of 1984 had any right to be appointed against vacancie which occurred before cancellation of list in 1985. Although the counter-affidavit expresses surprise on preparation of panel of nine persons against four vacancies, but it has not cared to file any Rule or Administrative Instructions which could indicate procedure prescribed for preparation of panel. Normally any panel prepared on basis of interview or selection consists of more names than the post so that in case any selected person does not join it may be offered to person lower in the list. Selection Committee, therefore, in preparing panel of nine persons against four vacancies, in absence of any rule or instructions cannot be said to have committed any error or violation of any order.