Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose in the context of recruitment of conductors by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation had prepared a waiting list of 414 candidates in 1980 to meet contingencies such as peak season requirements, suspension vacancies, and leave vacancies. The list was intended to operate for the years 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1982-83. Appointments were made during peak seasons by issuing notifications in newspapers, and candidates who reported within seven days were given appointments. It was alleged that seniority was not adhered to in respect of absentees, and juniors were given appointments. The respondent was one of the candidates on the seniority list but did not receive any intimation and therefore did not join during peak seasons. He filed a writ petition in 1993 challenging his non-appointment, contending that juniors to him had been appointed and some had even been regularised. The Allahabad High Court accepted this contention and directed the Corporation to appoint him as a conductor. The Corporation appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court. The Corporation argued that the waiting list for 1980 had been cancelled on July 19, 1980; writ petitions filed against the cancellation were dismissed; the respondent filed his writ petition for the first time in 1983; and from 1988 onwards the wait-list procedure had been dispensed with. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have given the direction. The respondent's counsel contended that the newspaper had no circulation in the region where he lived, and thus he could not appear and join; however, his juniors had been appointed and some regularised. The Supreme Court observed that candidates on a wait list have no right to a post. However, since the Corporation had already appointed some juniors from the waiting list, it necessarily should have given intimation to those candidates placed on the waiting list before following that procedure. If after intimation a candidate did not turn up, it could be taken that he waived the right of appointment. In this case, the candidate in the waiting list may have expected an order of appointment as and when a vacancy arose, and he may not have been able to read the newspaper even though published. Under these circumstances, after the cancellation of the wait-list procedure, though no one had a right, those who were on the wait list needed to be considered in accordance with the rules because their juniors had got appointments and were even regularised. The Supreme Court directed the appellant Corporation to consider the case of the respondent as a special case and make appointment according to procedure. It clarified that any other persons who had not approached or would approach the Court belatedly would not be entitled to any relief. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Waiting List - Right to Appointment - Not mentioned - Candidate on waiting list had no vested right to appointment, but where juniors from same waiting list were appointed and regularised without intimation to the senior candidate, the senior candidate was entitled to be considered as a special case and appointed according to procedure. Held that the appellant Corporation should have given intimation to candidates before appointment; if a candidate failed to respond after intimation, it could be treated as waiver. The Court directed the appellant to consider the respondent as a special case and make appointment according to procedure. (Paras 1-2) B) Service Law - Delay and Laches - Belated Claims - Not mentioned - Other persons who had not approached or would approach the Court belatedly were not entitled to any relief. Held that the benefit of the direction was limited to the respondent who had approached in time and whose juniors had been appointed and regularised. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a candidate on a cancelled waiting list for conductor posts is entitled to appointment when his juniors were appointed and regularised, despite not having responded to newspaper notification due to lack of circulation or intimation.
Final Decision
Appeal disposed of. The appellant Corporation was directed to consider the case of the respondent as a special case and make appointment according to procedure. Any other persons who had not approached or would approach the Court belatedly would not be entitled to any relief. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Waiting list candidate has no vested right to appointment
- if juniors appointed and regularised from same list
- senior candidate entitled to special consideration
- intimation to candidates before appointment is mandatory
- failure to respond after intimation may constitute waiver
- cancellation of wait list does not extinguish right to special consideration where juniors benefited
- belated claimants not entitled to relief
