RAMAKRISHNA LIBANG Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner Shri Ramakrishna Libang made a prayer for a direction to the State respondents/ competent authority to appoint him to the post of Junior Teacher in terms of the select list prepared] by the respondents-authority as seen in the document marked Annexure- V to the writ petition by contending inter alia, that in response to a related advertisement published by the Director of Education Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun, the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Teacher in Social Studies and he was called for written and viva-voce test and on the basis of his performance in the said test interview conducted by the authority, he was selected and he has been placed in the panel/waiting list at Serial 42 in order of merit, but he has not been given appointment to the said post of Junior Teacher in Social Studies, though as many as eight candidates whose names appeared below the name of petitioner in the waiting list have been given appointment very recently. It is also the case of the petitioner that some candidates who are similarly situated with the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petitions being WP(C) 162 (AP) 2000 and WP(C) 94(AP) 2000 by taking the same plea which the petitioner is pleading in the instant case and, they got the relief from this Court under the common judgment and order dated 17.8.2001 passed in the said cases. Mr J.K. Panggang, learned counsel contended that in terms of the common judgment and order dated 17.8.2001 passed by this Court in those two cases those writ petitioners have been given appointment to the post of Junior Teachers, and as such similar benefits also should be afforded to the present writ petitioner.

(2.) No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents State. Mr R.H. Nabam, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate for the State respondents admits the existence of the common judgment and order dated 17.8.2001 passed by this Court in WP(C) 162(A)2000 and WP(C) 94(AP)2000 as seen in the document marked as Annexure VI to the writ petition.

(3.) There is material on record that the authority concerned/respondents had afforded/appointments to some candidates whose names appeared below the name of the present writ petitioner in the related select list in as such as, 1) Ms Liter Bagra Serial No. 63, 2) Sri Jumna Padu, Serial No. 87,3) Sri Ajanta Modi, Serial No. 114, 4) Ms Yago Yaka, Serial No. 130, 5) Sri Bajir Gamoh, Serial No. 160,6) Ms Deyir Ete, Serial No. 111, 7) Sri Amurah Pertin, Serial No. 201 and 8) Sri Rontu Tahor, Serial No. 255, have been given appointment to the post of Junior Teachers and it is also not disputed that the name of the petitioner appears at Serial No. 42. I am of the view that the present case is also covered up by the said common judgment and order dated 17.8.2001 passed in WP(C) 162 (AP) 2000 and WP(C) 94 (AP) 2000, and as such, the petitioner also should get the same benefit which was afforded by this Court to those writ petitioners in the said two cases, to the present writ petitioner also: 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 merit 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 Shankarsan Dash, appellant- Vs-Union of India, respondent reported in (1991)3 SCC 47, and, also other decisions reported in (1993)1 SCC 154, (1974)3 SCC 220, (1986)1 SCC 268 and (1985)1 SCC 122. In U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. and another, appellants- Vs-Vijay Kumar Upadhya and another, respondents reported in (1997)9 SCC 334, the Apex Court held that similarly placed persons are entitled to the same benefits despite practical difficulties on the part of the authority concerned in grant of benefits i.e, regularisation of services. In another case between U.P. State Road Transport Corpn., and another, appellants-Vs- Gorbadhan and another, respondents reported in (1996) 10 SCC 703, the Apex Court held thus: