BIGHNARAJ PANDA Vs. CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is at the instance of one Bighnaraj Panda who seeks the following reliefs : ' xx xx (ii) That the opp. party Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to file their show cause within a stipulated time why the writ application should not be allowed and in the event they fail to file their show cause or show insufficient cause then in the writ application after hearing the petitioner's advocate be allowed, (iii) And to issue a writ of mandamus to the opp. party Nos. 1 and 2 to declare the result of the petitioner. (iv) That in the event if it is necessary, orders to call for the comment sheet and result sheet and the mark sheet may also be called for from the interview board held on 25 -10 -1990. (v) And to issue rule nisi to the opp. party Nos. 1 and 2 for appointing the petitioner in the post of Technician Grade II Testing Trainee from the date of appointment of opp. party No. 3, that is from 30 -11 -1990, and for terminating the opp. party No. 3 from the Testing Department. xx xx'

(2.) IT is stated in detail that opp. party No. 1 the Central Institute of Plastic Engineering and Technology (for short 'CIPET') at Madras is an autonomous institute under the Ministry of Petroleum, Department of Chemicals and Petro -Chemicals, Government of India and it is a 'State' as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a Science Graduate having post -graduate diploma in Plastic Testing and Quality Control from CIPET, and he had applied for the post of Technical Grade II Testing Trainee Code TT/BBS/90/93 in response to an advertisement published in the Employment News dated 30th of June and 6th of July, 1990 by opp. party No. 2, senior Manager (Project), Central Institute of Plastic Engineering and Technology Extension Centre. Bhubaneswar. The petitioner was thereafter called for interview on 25th October, 1990. It is further stated that interview was held for the post of Technician Grade II Training both Processing and Testing and also for the post of Operator Trainee Grade III (Processing) on 25 -10 -1990 and interview was also conducted on 26 -10 -1990 for the post of Technician Grade I! Tool Room/Design, etc. The result of the interview in respect of Tool Room/Design department was published and posts were filled up in 1990, whereas the result of interview in respect of Testing Department has not yet been published by opp. party No. 2. The petitioner was selected in the interview for the post of Technician Grade II Testing Trainee. It is alleged that the petitioner by his letter dated 15 -2 -1991 requested opp. parties 1 and 2 for publishing the result of interview for the post of Technician Grade II Testing Trainee but the said opposite parties have neither published the result nor communicated their reply to the petitioner regarding his appointment. Consequently the petitioner has come to the writ Court seeking the reliefs as indicated above.

(3.) THE learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the acts done and/or caused to have been don by opp. parties 1 and 2 are obviously inregulate and illegal, inasmuch as after the advertisement and interview of the petitioner and further selection having been made, appointment cannot be denied to him on the alleged plea that person from Madras was transferred to Bhubaneswar. This is contrary to and inconsistent with the provisions of law. It is admitted that the petitioner cannot insist on issue of any letter of appointment, but the plea that the vacancy has already been filled up by transfer of another person is not permissible in law. He has argued further that once advertisement was issued for the vacancy at Bhubaneswar for which interview was held and selection was made, that vacancy could not have been filled up by transfer of another person from Madras to frustrate the legitimate expectation of the petitioner in support of his contention, he has referred to a decision reported in 1991 Lab. I. C. 1460(Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India) and, in particular, has drawn attention of the Court to para -7 at page 1463 which runs as follows : '7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Harwaha, (1974) 1 SCR 165 : (1973 Lab IC 1218), Miss Neelima Shangia v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 268 : (1987 Lab IC 34), or Jitendra Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCR 899 : (AIR 1984 SC 1850).' He has also referred to another decision, JT 1993(3) SC 15 (Union of India and Ors. v. Hindustan Development Corporation and Ors.) as to the doctrine of legitimate expectation.