A plea to quash a Dean appointment and seek appointment based on an earlier select list was dismissed due to gross laches. The Court held empanelment does not create vested rights when a new recruitment process has started.
The petition praying for appointment to the post of Dean was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
WP+1630
mss
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 1630 OF 2010
Dr. RAMESH NAMDEO BHARMAL
Vs.
THANE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.- RESPONDENTS
Mr. P. M. Pradhan i/. Mr. Sanjay Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R. S. Apte i/b. Mr. A. R. Pitale, Advocate for the Respondents.
CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED: 2/9/2010
P.C.
The petitioner is working as Professor and Head of Department of Microbiology in Rajiv Gandhi Medical College-respondent 2 herein which is run by the Thane Municipal Corporation-respondent 1 herein (“TMC” for short). In this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the selection process commenced by advertisement dated 23/5/2007 for the post of Dean of Rajiv Gandhi Medical College be quashed and set-aside with a direction to consider the petitioner for appointment to the said vacant post. The
2
petitioner has also prayed that respondent 1 be restrained from proceeding with the selection process to the post of Dean of Rajiv Gandhi Medical College.
3
WP+1630
Medical College of the TMC. On 4/9/09, Dr. Shilotri was removed from the said post pursuant to the order dated 29/4/09 passed by this Court to the effect that superannuated person cannot be appointed to substantive post. Admittedly, on 7/2/2010, a fresh advertisement has been issued and the petitioner has once again applied for the post of Dean.
4
WP+1630
appear to be correct. The select list was placed before the General Body Meeting held on 12/9/07 and it was approved by the General Body. In any case it is not possible for us to entertain this petition because it suffers from gross laches. Dr. Shilotri was appointed on deputation from 14/1/08. The petitioner did not challenge this appointment. Dr. Shilotri retired on superannuation on 30/9/08 in his parent department. The petitioner did not challenge the appointment of Dr. Shilotri as Dean in Rajiv Gandhi Medical College made on 18/11/08. He has filed this petition belatedly on 23/2/2010.
after the notified vacancies are filled up, the vacancies which subsequently arise can be filled up by taking recourse to the same select list. The Supreme Court observed that since 13 vacancies of the General Category had been advertised and filled up, the selection process so far as the General Category candidates are concerned, stood exhausted and the unexhausted select list is meant only to be consigned to record room. The Supreme Court clarified that a person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for purpose of appointment and by itself it
5
WP+1630
does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate. The Supreme Court further observed that the waiting list cannot be used as a reservoir and unexhausted select list becomes meaningless and cannot be pressed in service.
6
WP+1630
observed that it is clear from the reading of these provisions that the Selection Committee shall recommend not only the candidates selected by it in order of merit but shall further prepare a reserve list to the extent of 50 per cent of the vacancies and persons kept in the reserve list will be considered as having been selected for the concerned post and shall be entitled for appointment, if any vacancy is caused during the validity period of the reserve list. Such are not the facts here. Here the select list was not extended. Facts of Uma Kant materially differ from the facts of the present
case, hence Uma Kant has no application to it.
(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner barred by gross laches can fall back on an earlier unexhausted select list for appointment to a vacant post.
Whether empanelment on a select list creates a vested right to be appointed if vacancies are subsequently filled through a new recruitment process.
Whether Section 53 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act was violated due to lack of General Body sanction for a deputation appointment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Uma Kant v. Dr. Bhikalal Jain & Ors.Distinguished¶21
Dr. Uma Kant v. Dr. Bhikalal Jain & Ors. (1992) 1 SCC 105 · Who else cites this
Rakhi Ray & Ors. Vs. High Court of Delhi & Ors.Relied on¶27
Rakhi Ray & Ors. Vs. High Court of Delhi & Ors. 2010 ALL SCR 542 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Ramesh Namdeo Bharmal
Thane Municipal Corporation
Ranjana Desai
R. V. More
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
