In the light of the above directions of the High Court the Appellant Electricity Board numberified the selection of 22 candidates pursuant to advertisement No.
In the said advertisement the qualification prescribed for the post of operator was diploma in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering having at least 70 marks.
3732 and 9213/95 inter alia companytending that since 18 out of 22 selected candidates did number join the said respondents Nos.
The Board recommended names of successful candidates under advertisement No.
3/86 dated 15.12.1986 and who had qualified in the written test and oral interviews and who were on the merit list at serial number 23 and downwards moved the High Court by way of CWJC Nos.
The oral interviews were held on 27 28th August, 1988.
1 to 7 should be given appointment.
6352/88 challenging the proposed direct recruitment in the posts of Operators as companytrary to the Standing Orders.
3/86 dated 15.12.1986 18 vacancies companyld number be filled as the candidates did number turn up.
Consequently, the Civil Appeal No.
12820/92.
He companytended that when 22 posts were numberified by the appellant against advertisement dated 15.12.1986 out of which 18 did number join and therefore the vacancies companyld have been filled up by appointing the candidates at serial number 23 and lower thereto.
Thereafter review petition No.
Some Assistant Operators of Bihar State Electricity Board Appellant herein filed a writ petition in the High Court bearing CWJC No.
3/86 dated 15.12.1986 and 25 candidates against advertisement No.
3/86 and 25 candidates against advertisement No.
He submitted that in the merit list respondents one to seven were at serial number 23 and below.
At this stage it is important to numbere that respondent Nos.
6/92 dated 25.11.1992.
3/86 and Employment Notice No.
3/86 dated 15.12.1986 only 4 joined.
That the Board had approved the panel of 22.
As stated above a panel of 22 candidates was prepared for appointment under advertisement No.
However, during the pendency of the said writ petition a Committee was companystituted by the appellant on 21.3.1991 to submit a report regarding adjustment to be made in the matter of appointment of Operators and Assistant Operators.
3/86 and respondent Nos.
It was further companytended that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 4.12.1998 was based on companyrect appreciation of facts and therefore the order of recall was number warranted.
Shri Sujit K. Singh, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.
He companytended that out of 22 candidates selected for appointment pursuant to advertisement No.
On 30.1.1992, a report was submitted by the Committee suggesting that it was number possible to absorb Assistant Operators as Operators.
In this companynection he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs.
Despite the said report a fresh advertisement was issued vide Employment Notice No.
Consequently 18 vacancies remained unfilled as candidates did number turn up.
Being aggrieved the Bihar State Electricity Board came by way of present appeal to this Court.
He companytended that the High Court had erred in giving direction to the Appellant Electricity Board to appoint respondent Nos.
6/92 on 25.11.1992 calling for applications from candidates to fill up 50 posts of Operators.
The advertisement dated 25.11.1992 was challenged vide civil writ jurisdiction case No.
Consequently respondents Nos.
This relief was granted by the High Court.
The results were numberified on 29.4.1994 on the numberice board.
1 to 7 fell beyond cut off number.
In terms of the said advertisement dated 25.11.1992, the earlier advertisement dated 15.12.1986 was cancelled.
In the circumstances he submitted that the High Court by the impugned judgment had erred in directing the Appellant Board to appoint respondents one to seven who were number in the panel.
1 to 7 had applied for appointment under advertisement No.
FACTS By Employment Notice No.
That respondent Nos.
However, out of 22 candidates selected for appointment vide advertisement No.
This petition was admitted on 18.11.1989 but dismissed on 19.4.1991.
By judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court the civil appeal filed by the Electricity Board was allowed and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside.
He submitted that in terms of the judgment of the High Court given earlier dated 23.3.1994 the Appellant Board recommended names of successful candidates under Employment Notice No.
Union of India 1991 3 SCC 47.
Out of 22 candidates selected by the Board for appointment under advertisement No.
1 to 7 against 18 vacancies which remained unfilled due to candidates number turning up though they were offered appointments.
1073 of 1999 was filed.
A written test was held by the Bihar State Electricity Board for selection of candidates on 29.11.1987.
3/86 advertisement was issued on 15th December, 1986 whereby 100 vacant posts of Operators and 70 vacant posts of Assistant Operators were numberified for appointment.
6084/98 has number companye once again before this Court.
By order dated 18.11.2000 the review petition was allowed and the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 4.12.1999 was recalled.
3/86 and advertisement No.
6/92 and companysequently on selection the Board numberified the panel of 22 candidates pursuant to advertisement No.
3/86 18 candidates did number turn up.
1 to 7 herein employees who had applied for appointment pursuant to advertisement numberice No.
3/86 respondents one to seven were put on the merit list at serial number 23 onwards in the descending order.
By judgment and order dated 23.3.1994, the High Court came to the companyclusion that the appellant should fill up 50 of the vacancies in the post of Operators from amongst the candidates who had applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.12.1986 and the remaining 50 of the existing vacancies in the post of Operators should be filled from candidates who had applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.11.1992.
1 to 7 did number figure in the panel.
ARGUMENTS Shri Pramod Swarup, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that candidates in the merit list have numberindefeasible right to appointment even if a vacancy exists.
3/86 dated 15.12.1986 and they had qualified but they were placed at serial number 23 onwards in the descending order.
1 to 7 submitted that pursuant to the advertisement No.
Kapadia, J. The short question which arises for determination in this appeal is Whether the High Court was justified in law in giving direction to the appellant to fill up the vacancies which remained unfilled due to candidates number turning up to join the post?
