Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 778 (RAJ)

Virendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

1998-07-21

B.S.CHAUHAN

body1998
Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to prepare a merit list in accordance with the Instruction issued by the State Government or to extend the merit list beyond Serial No. 267 and to include the name of the petitioner at Serial No. 267 and to officer him appointment. (2). Mr. R.S. Saluja, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various grievances. However, the same cannot be considered for the reason that the selection process started long back and had been concluded. As per the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred as ``the Rules), the select list prepared for Teachers Grade III would expire at the end of the Academic Session, i.e., 30th June of each year. However, in the instant case it appears that a Division Bench of this Court, in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 857/1997, had interfered with the selection process and extended the life of the Select List upto 30.11.97 perhaps for the reason that for some time the interim order of the court was prevailing. However, Mr. Saluja has not disputed the fact that select list expired on 30.11.97. (3). In J. Ashok Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1), the Apex Court has held that once the selection process is over, the Writ Court should not interfere on mere irregularities. In State of Bihar vs. Mohammed Kalimuddin and others (2), the Honble Supreme Court considered the case of appointment of teachers in the Government Basic Schools and held that there can be no justification to interfere with the selection process after the select list has lapsed on the expiry of the period provided under the statute. In State of Bihar vs. Mohammed Kalimuddin and others (2), the Honble Supreme Court considered the case of appointment of teachers in the Government Basic Schools and held that there can be no justification to interfere with the selection process after the select list has lapsed on the expiry of the period provided under the statute. The same view has been taken by the Honble Apex Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Harish Chandra (3), wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:- ``This being the position and in view of the statutory rules contained in rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules, we really failed to understand how the High Court could issue the impugned direction to recruit the respondents who were included in the select list prepared on 4.4.87 and the list no longer survived after one year and the rights, if any, of persons including in the list, did not subsist.............it is difficult for us to sustain the direction given by the High Court, since, admittedly, the life of the select list prepared on 4.4.87 had expired long since and the respondents, who claimed their right to be appointed on the basis of such list, did not have a subsisting right on the date they approach the High Court. (4). The same view had been taken in Dr. Surinder Singh Jamval and another vs. State of J&K and others (4). (5). Thus, in view of the above, the petition cannot be entertained at such a belated stage as the select list had already expired. (6). Mr. Saluja, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Court has power to interfere in a case like the instant on equity as grave injustice has been done to the petitioner. The averment made by Mr. Saluja is not worth considering for the reason that the Court cannot pass an order or issue direction for violating the statutory provisions. (7). In Union of India & Anr. vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. (5), the Honble Supreme Court observed as under:- ``Yet the question is whether it is permissible for the High Court to direct the authorities under the Act to act contrary to the aforesaid statutory provision. We do not think it is, even while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution. The power conferred by Arti. vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. (5), the Honble Supreme Court observed as under:- ``Yet the question is whether it is permissible for the High Court to direct the authorities under the Act to act contrary to the aforesaid statutory provision. We do not think it is, even while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution. The power conferred by Arti. 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the rule of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with law............ May be the High Court or a Civil Court is not bound by the said provisions but the authorities under the Act. are Nor can there be any question of the High Court clothing the au- thorities with its power under Article 226 or the power of a Civil Court. No such delegation or conferment can ever be conceived. (8). Similarly, in Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad And others vs. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra and others (6), the Honble Apex Court observed as under:- ``It is settled legal position that a mandamus cannot be issued to vio- late the law or to act in violation of the law. In this case, the direction issued by the High Court tentamounts to a direction to the appellant to appoint the respondents as per the order issued by the Chancellor, in violation of the Act. The mandamus was,therefore,clearly illegal. (9). In the instant case, as the statutory rules provide for a particular period of life of the select list, this Court cannot issue a direction to make appointment in contravention of the statutory rules. In view of the above, I find no force in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.