SRINIVASA RAO U Vs. NUCLEAR FUEL COMPLEX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners appear to have been selected in the year 1992, wherefor a selected list was prepared. They were not appointed. Thereafter, in the year 1994, an amendment in the procedure for selection had come into force. The petitioners filed applications, when fresh vacancies were notified, before the Tribunal praying therein for a direction upon the respondents to give effect to the aforementioned 1992 panel. The Original Application was dismissed; whereagainst the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that by reason of the said 1994 amendment, only a provision for training has been inserted and the writ petitioners are ready to undergo such training.

(3.) However, it is not disputed that the petitioners had been selected out of 1992 select list. It is now a well settled principles of law that a panel cannot be allowed to remain alive for a long time. It is further well settled that once a new procedure has been laid down for selecting the candidates, all vacancies arising thereafter must be filled up in terms of the amended Rules. Further more, the petitioners do not have any legal right to be selected only because they were empanelled as far back as in the year 1992. Reference in this connection has been made to State of Bihar vs. Secretarial Assistance Successful Examinees Union, Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India and Sabita Prasad and others vs. State of Bihar and others. Sabita Prasad's case is also an authority for the proposition that the panel cannot be allowed to remain alive for a long time, having regard to the fact that the vacancy position was subject to variation.