MAKTEM DAI Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents-State to appoint him to the post of Assistant Teacher (A) with effect from the date on which the respondent No. 3 Smti Renu Singh had been appointed as Assistant Teacher (A) coupled with a prayer for quashing the appointment order dated 21.4.1999 as in Annexure-5 to the writ petition by contending inter alia, that the petitioner along with 4 (four) candidates including the respondent No. 3 had been selected and recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (A) and those selected candidates were kept in the panel list for appointment as soon as vacancy arises and, the names of those candidates in terms of order of merit are as follows: 1. Shri Kiron Ningo (APST) 2. Shri Maktem Dai (APST) 3.Shri Maktel Dai(APST) 4. Shri Puluk Khampa (APST) 5. Smti Renu Singh (Non-APST) and, the candidates who is at SI. No. 5, a non-APST was given appointment to the post of Asstt. Teacher (A) by virtue of the appointment order dated 21st April, 1999 as in Annexure-5 to the writ petition thus, superseding the other candidates including the present petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is resisted by the State-respondents by contending inter alia, that Smti. Renu Singh, the respondent No. 3 herein who is the first amongst the non-APST candidates in the present list, has been given appointment in the post of Assistant Teacher(A) in view of the shortage of Hindi Teacher in the district to utilise her as Hindi Teacher thus depriving the rights of the petitioner.

(3.) Be that as it may, it is an admitted position that the candidate who is at SI, No. 5 has been given appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher(A) thus, ignoring the case of other candidates including the petitioner herein who are above the respondent No. 3 in the related panel list. Law is settled on this legal issue inasmuch as, the State respondents are bound to respect the comparative merit of the: candidates and they cannot act arbitrarily. It is well settled that a selected candidate: whose name finds in the select list cannot: claim for appointment as of right to a post unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicates, and the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner and the State is bound to respect the comparative merits of the candidates as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. In this regard, a reference can be made to a decision of a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court rendered in Shankaran Dash, appellant-Vs-Union of India, respondent, reported in (1991)3 SCC47, and, also other decision reported in (1993)1 SCC 154, (1974) 3 SCC 220, (1986) 4 SCC 268 and (1985)1 SCC 122.