2000 JTR(SC) 56
2000 9 SCC 405 ; 2001 SCC(L&S) 87 ; 2000 KHC 1527
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : U.C.Banerjee
Kishore K.Pati
Versus
Distt.Inspector Of Schools, Midnapore
Case No. : 121 of 2000
Date of Decision : 1/10/00
An appointment made pursuant to a final, unchallenged order of a Single Judge allowing a candidate to be interviewed despite lack of employment exchange sponsorship cannot be subsequently annulled by a Division Bench on the sole ground of absence of such sponsorship.
(A) Service Law - Recruitment - Employment Exchange - Finality of Court Orders - Appointment made pursuant to the order of a Single Judge allowing interview despite lack of sponsorship by employment exchange - Order of Single Judge not assailed and attained finality - Division Bench cannot subsequently annul the appointment on the same ground of lack of sponsorship. (Para 3)
(B) Writ Appeal - Scope - Division Bench in error in setting aside appointment made in accordance with a final order of a Single Judge. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A Single Judge directed authorities to consider the case of the appellant and another candidate for an interview, notwithstanding the fact that their names had not been sponsored by the employment exchange. Pursuant to this order, the appellant was interviewed and found suitable, leading to an appointment. However, in a subsequent appeal, the Division Bench annulled the recruitment on the sole ground that the candidates were not sponsored by the employment exchange.
Findings of Court:
The orders of the Single Judge directing the interviews were not challenged and thus became final. The Division Bench was without jurisdiction and in error to annul the appointment made pursuant to those final orders.
Issues: Whether the Division Bench was justified in annulling the recruitment on the sole ground that the candidate was not sponsored by the employment exchange, despite a prior order of a Single Judge allowing the interview.
Ratio Decidendi: When an order of a Single Judge allowing a candidate to be interviewed despite lack of employment exchange sponsorship is not assailed and attains finality, a Division Bench cannot subsequently annul the resulting appointment on the same ground.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Writ Appeal - Scope - Division Bench in error in setting aside appointment made in accordance with a final order of a Single Judge. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A Single Judge directed authorities to consider the case of the appellant and another candidate for an interview, notwithstanding the fact that their names had not been sponsored by the employment exchange. Pursuant to this order, the appellant was interviewed and found suitable, leading to an appointment. However, in a subsequent appeal, the Division Bench annulled the recruitment on the sole ground that the candidates were not sponsored by the employment exchange.
Findings of Court:
The orders of the Single Judge directing the interviews were not challenged and thus became final. The Division Bench was without jurisdiction and in error to annul the appointment made pursuant to those final orders.
Issues: Whether the Division Bench was justified in annulling the recruitment on the sole ground that the candidate was not sponsored by the employment exchange, despite a prior order of a Single Judge allowing the interview.
Ratio Decidendi: When an order of a Single Judge allowing a candidate to be interviewed despite lack of employment exchange sponsorship is not assailed and attains finality, a Division Bench cannot subsequently annul the resulting appointment on the same ground.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was justified in annulling the recruitment in favour of the appellant on the sole ground that in the absence of any sponsoring by the employment exchange, the petitioner could not have at all been considered for the post in question.
(3) IT transpires that the learned Single Judge by orders dated 16/11/1998 and 19/12/1998 directed the authorities concerned to consider the case of the present appellant as well as Respondent 7 in interview notwithstanding the fact that their names had not been sponsored by the employment exchange. This view of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be erroneous. Pursuant to the said order, the appellant and Respondent 7 did appear in the interview and though the appellant was found suitable, yet Respondent 7 was found unsuitable. The orders of the learned Single Judge directing the authorities to allow the appellant and Respondent 7 to be interviewed were not assailed and thus became final. In that view of the matter, in the second round of litigation, the Division Bench was totally in error to annul the appointment made in favour of the appellant after interviewing him pursuant to the orders of the learned Single Judge, which has attained finality, is without jurisdiction and we are of the considered opinion that the Division Bench was in error in setting aside the appointment of the appellant.
(4) MR Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for Respondent 7 contended that in the writ appeal filed by him before the Division Bench, he has raised several questions which have not been answered and therefore it would be appropriate for this Court to remit the matter to the Division Bench for redisposal. On going through the counter-affidavit and the impugned judgment of the High Court, we do not find any contention raised not being answered by the Division Bench. On the other hand, the Division Bench has disposed of the appeal on the ground that the consideration of the case of the appellant and Respondent 7 whose case has not been sponsored by the employment exchange is not sustainable in law and as we have said earlier, the said view is not correct. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and allow this appeal. Needless to mention that the appellant would be entitled to the salary from the date he joined pursuant to the orders passed in his favour.
(5) THIS appeal stands allowed accordingly.