AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.—This Writ appeal is filed assailing the Judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition.
The facts of the case are that the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation decided to recruit 400 Conductors for the Divisions of Chittoor and Tirupathi. Notification No. P1/331(4), 91-DVM (CTR) was sent to the Employment Exchange for sponsoring the candidates. In pursuance of the same, the candidates were sponsored and interviews were held between 27-3-1992 and 2-4-1992. The selection list appointing 382 candidates was published on 2-4-1992. In the proceedings dated 2-4-1992 approving the selection list, it was stated that the panel was valid upto 1-10-1993. However, 255 candidates from among the empanelled 382 candidates were appointed as Conductors. But no appointments were issued to any of the remaining candidates empanelled. Therefore, the petitioners challenged the action of the Corporation in not appointing them as Conductors though they were selected and empanelled.
The Corporation contended that the notification that was issued for recruitment of Conductors, was for the existing and also future vacancies. As there was no requirement of future vacancies, the Corporation appointed 255 candidates from among the 382 candidates empanelled in the list. In the meanwhile, the life of the panel expired. Therefore, there was no illegality or violation of rules and regulations of Corporation in refusing the appointment of the petitioners. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival contentions of the petitioners and the Corporation, held that the life of the panel was not informed to the candidates who were empanelled. Therefore, they were prevented from applying to any other post, and thus, their rights are infringed. Therefore, the learned Single Judge directed the Corporation to keep the panel alive until the notified number of vacancies are filled, waiving the age bar if necessary. Against that order, the present Writ appeal is filed.
The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation contended that the Corporation issued a notification for the then existing and future vacancies and prepared a panel and kept the panel to be expired within 18 months and during that period, for the vacancies available the appointments were made. Therefore, when once the life of the panel expired, the empanelled candidates have no right to claim employment. At the most, they can apply for the recruitment whenever notification is issued for the fresh appointments along with others. Therefore, there is no violation of rights under Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. Further, there is no regulation or rule provided to intimate the life of the panel to the candidates who were empanelled. Therefore, the writ appeal has to be allowed.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners contended that the Corporation has issued a notification calling for 400 candidates from the Employment Exchange and the petitioners were selected and the panel was prepared for the selected candidates. The petitioners are not informed about the life of the panel. Further, all the notified posts were not filled; but only 255 candidates were appointed. Thus, though the petitioners were selected in the interview, the appointments were not made within the expiry period of the panel and thereby, the petitioners are deprived of their appointments. Further, the Corporation has not shown as to why they are not appointing the Conductors as notified. Therefore, the learned Single Judge elaborately considered and held that it is a violation of right to employment under Constitution of India and allowed the writ petition. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the above stated contentions of both sides, the only question that has to be decided, is whether the Writ petitioners are entitled for appointment to the posts in question.
The facts supra show that the Corporation has called for the names of candidates from the Employment Exchange for the appointment of 400 Conductors. To that effect, a notification was also issued. The Standing Counsel for the Corporation has produced the file dated 17-1-1992 of the Corporation, in which it is shown that the Corporation has decided that there is a requirement of 450 candidates i.e. 300 for Chittoor and 150 for Tirupathi. The Divisional Managers of the concerned Divisions addressed the Authority to sanction the said posts and make appointments. However, by the proceedings dated 3-2-1992, the Competent Authority sanctioned 250 to Chittoor and 150 to Tirupathi Division. Accordingly, Notification was issued for appointment of 400 Conductors and a Panel was prepared for 382 candidates and only 255 candidates were appointed and the remaining candidates are not appointed. The Corporation stated in the counter that as the notification was issued calling for the then existing vacancies and future vacancies, there is no requirement of future vacancies and the Corporation appointed only 255 candidates and did not appoint other candidates who were empanelled because there was no necessity of future vacancies. Therefore, there is nothing wrong or illegal on the part of the Corporation in not appointing the remaining candidates who were empanelled. But, the Corporation has not placed any material before us to show that the Divisional Managers of Chittoor and Tirupathi Divisions wrote to the Corporation stating that there is reduction in the increase of schedule of running buses as proposed by them earlier and so, they require only lesser number of Conductors than the number of Conductors proposed by them earlier. Apart from that, there is also no other material to show as to what has made the Corporation to reduce the appointments when the notification was issued calling for the posts of 400 Conductors. On the other hand, after the expiry of the life of the panel, the Corporation issued notification and again appointed other candidates. When some of the candidates approached this Court earlier, this Court also directed to make fresh appointments.
In view of these facts, it is clear that the contention of the Corporation that there are no vacancies, is not tenable. We do not want to peep into the question whether life of the panel expires or not, as it is not relevant for the purpose of this appeal. The Corporation has always got right to fix the life of the panel; but in the present case a notification was issued for required number of posts of Conductors and the appointments are not made though the candidates were empanelled and further the Corporation is not able to show that there were no vacancies to the number of posts as notified by the Corporation. The reasons put forth by the Corporation seems to be only lame excuse. The facts of the case reveal that the corporation did not appoint the petitioners though they were selected and empanelled. Right to appointment is not a fundamental right, but the right to be considered for appointment is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Chandrachud, C.J., speaking for the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis and Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, , held that right to life includes the right to livelihood and deprivation of right to livelihood, except according to just and fair procedure established by law, can be challenged as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Where an eligible candidate is selected and empanelled for appointment to a post, non-appointment of the said candidate without assigning any reasons amounts to deprivation of livelihood to the candidate which he would have got after appointment. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioners is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
In Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and Others, , when the respondent-employee was dismissed from service after enquiry in which opportunity to engage legal practitioner was denied, the Supreme Court holding that life includes reputation or livelihood of a person, observed:
"The expression ''life'' has a much wider meaning. Where therefore the outcome of a departmental enquiry is likely to adversely affect reputation or livelihood of a person, some of the finer graces of human civilization which make life worth living would be jeopardised and the same can be put in jeopardy only by law which inheres fair procedures."
Dealing with a case of an employee, who was physically incapacitated due to disease, seeking absorption in a post equal to his original post, the Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Chandla Vs. State of Haryana and others, . observed that Article 21 protects the right to livelihood as an integral facet of right to life and it is the duty of the employer to adjust an employee, who is unable to perform the duties of the post he was holding, in a post in which the employee would be suitable to discharge the duties. In D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., , the Supreme Court while dealing with the question of termination of service of the appellant without holding domestic enquiry or affording any opportunity to him, observed that the termination of service of an employee involves civil consequences which results in deprivation of right to livelihood implicit under Article 21 and so it has to be effected in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure.
From the principles laid down in the above decisions of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the termination of service of an employee without following procedure, not giving alternative post to physically handicapped employee and not permitting an employee to engage a legal practitioner when the presenting and enquiry officers were legal experts, amounts to unfair procedure which in turn is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The principle laid down in the above decisions squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Though the petitioners were selected and were empanelled, they were not appointed even when there were vacancies. Therefore, non-appointment of the petitioners as Conductors amounts to deprivation of right to livelihood which is implicit under Article 21 of the Constitution. All the selected candidates, who were empanelled were appointed, except the petitioners. Therefore, the action of the respondents is discriminatory and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, we see no merits in the appeal and accordingly dismiss the appeal. The relief is confined to the writ petitioners only. The Corporation is directed to appoint the writ petitioners and issue posting orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Seniority will notionally be reckoned as per the panel.