Vinai Kumar Mishra and another vs State of U.P. and another

Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—The petitioners have prayed for issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to give effect to the select list prepared by the Selection Committee for making appointment of the petitioners to the post of Instructor Electroplater without any delay.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have completed two years course from the Industrial Training Institute, Lucknow in Electroplater Trade and being eligible for appointment on the post of Instructor Electrop later, they submitted an application in pursuance of an advertisement No. 3/9499, issued in the Employment Newspaper, in the last week of March, 1995.

They were issued letters to participate in the selection process and; accordingly, they have participated also. The result of the selection was notified on 8th March, 1996, in which the petitioners'' name were shown at Serial Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. The select list has been brought on record, as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition. Despite the publication of selection list, when they were not given appointment, they submitted several representations to the authority concerned, but all in vain. The petitioners further submit that respondent No. 2 has already issued an appointment letter to one Shri Pancham, whose name stands at Serial No. 4, in the select list while no appointment letters were issued to the petitioners and, accordingly, they submit that the respondents have adopted pick and choose policy by their discriminatory action, which is illegal and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Through the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that in the Industrial Training Institute, the State of U.P., by way of a Government Order dated 27.3.1995, 2284 seats have been reduced, on account of which, four posts of InstructorsinElectroplater Trade, have been abolished. The Subordinate Selection Board was also intimated for the same. Accordingly, they submit that the intimation for appointment of posts was already received in the Commission, in the month of December, 1995, but in spite of having information, the Commission proceeded for interview in the month of February, 1996, which is illegal since the posts are not available, no appointment cotild be made from the select list. For giving appointment to Shri Pancham, one of the selected candidates, the respondents submit that Shri Pancham belongs to Scheduled Castes category and since the quota of Scheduled Castes category was not fulfilled, he has been given appointment.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarson Das v. Union of India, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47, which has been followed consistently till date, has held that mere inclusion, the name in the select list does not confer any right of appointment The High Court could not direct to appoint any one unless the Government had acted arbitrarily.

In the present case, the Government has taken contrary stand as by one stand it has submitted that four posts of Instructors have been abolished without clarifying the position of the category of the posts and by another stand, it has submitted that one of the candidates of the select list, who was indisputedly below the petitioners in the select list at Serial No. 4, has been given appointment on the ground that he belongs to a Scheduled Castes category.

In light of the decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on the point in question, I am concious that the candidate on the select list has no right of appointment, but simultaneously the Government cannot be permitted to take an arbitrary action in making the appointment and in this matter, the arbitrary action of the respondent is obvious.

Under the circumstances, I feel it appropriate to interfere into the matter and I hereby issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to give the appointment to the petitioners within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the competent authority. However, the petitioners shall have no right to claim any benefit of employment with effect from the date of appointment of Shri Pancham except seniority.

In view of the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.