PRASENJIT DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions involving virtually a common question of facts and of laws were heard together, and are now being disposed of by this common judgment. For simplification, I will first refer to the facts of WP(C) No. 3055 of 2006, decide the same and thereafter, in so far as possible, dispose of the second writ petition in accordance therewith.

(2.) In WP(C) No. 3055 of 2006, the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste and passed High School Leaving Certificate Examination in the year 1998 and had also completed Trade Test in the trade of Electrician, applied for the post of Technician under the Scheduled Caste category in response to the advertisement dated 4-6-2003 appearing in local daily, "Dainik Sonar Cachar". According to the petitioner, after preliminary scrutiny, he was found provisionally eligible for the written test to be held subsequently, In the written test, he was declared successful on 10-8-2003. After the practical test as well as the interview held on 18-9-2003, he was provisionally selected for the lone post of Technician under the SC category. As he was never issued the appointment order he is filing this writ petition for appropriate directions. The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent authorities, however, makes an interesting reading. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner could not be given the appointment as there was no vacant post to accommodate him: the two posts of Technician were diverted from Doordarshan Kendriya (DDK), Silchar to DDK, Bhubaneshwar under redeployment policy on the direction of the Director-General, Doordarshan, New Delhi. Moreover, according to the answering respondents, the selection procedure did not conform to the formalities such as the absence of approval from the Screening Committee constituted by the Director-General of Doordarshan vide his order dated 5-5-2004. It is therefore, contended by the answering respondents that no right of the petitioner has been violated by not appointing him to the post of Technician when his selection process was done without the approval of the competent authority. These are the justification made by the respondent authorities in not acting upon the select list in question.

(3.) The submission of Mr. N. Dhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the respondents do not deny the fact that the petitioner was selected for the post of Technician by the Selection Committee, and once the petitioner has been selected on merit by the Selection Committee, he could not be denied of the appointment on the pretext that the post has been filled up by someone else or the post has been transferred elsewhere provided such transfer took place after the selection. It is contended by Mr. N. Dhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that it is true that mere selection of a candidate does not automatically entitle the candidate to appointment, yet appointment cannot be denied to him either unless the exigencies of service or the interest of public service do not require the filling up of the post, which is not the case here. He further submits that after subjecting the petitioner to undergo the gruelling process of written test, practical test and interview, the respondents are now estopped from changing their stance on the pretext of waiting for approval from the Chief Engineer. To bolster his contentions, he relies on the decisions of the Apex Court in Secy. AP Public Service commission v. B. Swapna, 2005 4 SCC 154and N.T. Devin Katti and others. V. Karnataka Public Service Commission, 1990 3 SCC 157. Mr. N. Borah, the learned CGSC appearing for the respondent authorities, however, supports the impugned decision of the respondent authorities and submits that when the selection process was conducted by the Station Director, Doordarshan, Silchar (respondent 7) without the prior approval of the Director-General of Doordarshan (respondent 4), the selection of the petitioner is non-est and cannot be acted upon. He further submits that empanelment in the select list does not confer upon the petitioner the right to be appointed, more so, when the selection itself is without authority of law. He, therefore, strenuously urges this court to dismiss the writ petition. He draws support from the decisions of this Court in Hem Chandra Barthakur v. State of Assam and ors, 2000 1 GauLT 310.