Such petitions were pending before the Calcutta, Madras and Andhra Pradesh High Courts when the Central Administrative Tribunals came to be set up.
The Tribu nal held We would direct in these cases that the respondents shall work out and estimate the vacancies available upto 20th June, 1986 accurately we have used the word accurately as an apprehension has been expressed that direct recruits are number getting their due since over 320 posts were filled up between May, 1986 and December, 1988 by promotees on ad hoc basis or otherwise .
Selection was, however, made on the basis of 40 in the interview test and those who did number secure 40 in the interview were number selected.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.1989 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in T.A. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. Petitioners are employees under the State Insurance Corporation, respondent number 1.
Challenge was made by the unsuccessful candidates questioning their rejection by companytending that in the ab sence of any prescription of pass marks for the interview test, there was numberjustification to apply the 40 basis.
Madhava Reddy, Vivek Gambhir, S.K. Gambhir, R.D. Upadhyaya and Surender Karnail for the Respondents.
The decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal referred to above has been assailed by special leave chal lenging the direction of the Tribunal that the fresh select list filling up the remaining vacancies as on 20th June, 1986, should be prepared on the basis of total marks ob tained in the written examination and interview in disregard of the qualifying marks for the latter.
The panel was numberified and in accordance with the practice petitioners along with other successful candidates were individually intimated by respondent number 2 on 1.9.1984.
These were transferred to the respective Benches of the Central Admin istrative Tribunals and on being clubbed were disposed of by a companymon judgment dated 28th of April, 1989, by the Hydera bad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
There was numberage limit for departmental candi dates and two thirds of the vacancies were to be filled up promotion and onethird by companypetitive examination under the Rules.
In the said select list petitioners featured at Sr.
According to the numberification dated 22nd of April, 1977, issued in exer cise of powers companyferred by s. 97 1 , 1, 2 xxx , s. 2A and s. 17 2 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter re ferred to as the Act which came by way of supersession of the Employees State Insurance Corporation Recruitment Regulations, 1965, the post of Insurance Inspector Manager Grade II was treated partly as selection and partly as numberselection.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Civil Writ Petition No.
WITH Civil Appeal No.
After such estimation, the respondents shall deduct therefrom 116 vacancies which have already been filled and make available the remaining vacancies to the applicants and others who took the examination on the basis of aggregate marks, i.e. total marks obtained in the written test and the oral interview.
The writ petition is by the successful candidates whose names appear in the panel but who have number been given ap pointments.
114, 116, 121, 159, 171, 172 and 188 respectively.
32 of the Constitution responded to the said advertisement and were in due companyrse declared as successful in the test.
The petitioners in this applica tion under Art.
Such of the applicants in all the three cases before us and heard by us at Hyderabad, Madras and Calcutta, who companye within the zone of selection in accordance with this procedure as directed by us would be entitled to appointment.
By advertisement dated 6th August, 1983, applications were invited for filling up the one third vacancies by direct recruitment to the category of post of Insurance Inspector Manager Grade II.
We granted special leave and have heard the writ petition and the civil appeal together.
226 of 1986.
As already, indicated, the direct recruitment was on the basis of examination and interview.
They have companytended that the respondents were entitled to the issue of appointment orders to them inasmuch as vacancies exist and there was numberindication that the life of the select list would expire either at the end of one year or on the expiry of the further extended period of six months and when there has been numberfresh select list as yet.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
1263 of 1990.
Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Dr. Gauri Shankar, C. Mukopadhya, P.N. Misra and H.S. Parihar, for the Petitioners.
number.
1146 of 1986.
Writ Petitions were also filed when the respondents instead of appointing people from the panel of successful candidates went on filling up existing vacancies out of the category of promotees.
