Sohan Singh Negi vs Safdarjung Hospital & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2033 Del

                  *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                              W.P.(C) 4972/2002

%                                                     Date of decision:19th April, 2010

          ARUN                                                          ..... Petitioner
                               Through: Mr. K.B. Thakur for Mr Siddharth Yadav, Advocate.


                                        Versus


          SAFDARJUNG HOSPITAL & ANR.                                  ..... Respondents
                               Through: Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal for the Respondent-UOI.

                                       AND

                                       WP(C)862/2003

          SOHAN SINGH NEGI                                              ..... Petitioner
                               Through: Mr. K.B. Thakur for Mr Siddharth Yadav, Advocate.



                                        Versus


          SAFDARJUNG HOSPITAL & ANR.                                  ..... Respondents
                               Through: Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal for the Respondent-UOI.




CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.        Whether reporters of Local papers may
          be allowed to see the judgment?                       No

2.        To be referred to the reporter or not?                No

3.        Whether the judgment should be reported               No
          in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The case of the petitioners in both writ petitions is that they were

registered with the Employment Exchange; that the respondent no.1 Safdarjung

Hospital had 35-40 vacancies for the post of Nursing Attendants for which

requisition was sent to the Employment Exchange; that the Employment

Exchange forwarded the names of some 1300-1400 persons eligible for the said

posts; that the respondent no.1 first conducted a preliminary screening and

thereafter set up a Selection Committee for conducting the interviews and the

interviews were held and a list of successful candidates selected for the post of

Nursing Attendants was released on 27th May, 1998; however the respondent

no.1 without assigning any reason cancelled the said list of selected candidates.

It is the case of the petitioners that their names figured in the list of selected

candidates. The petitioners seek a mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to

appoint the petitioners.

2. The respondent no.1 Safdarjung Hospital contested the writ petition

contending that the petitioners had no right to be appointed against a post merely

because they were recommended by the Selection Committee or their names

appeared in the selection list. It is pleaded that the selection was cancelled before

any appointment letters were issued to any of the candidates. It is further

pleaded that it is the prerogative of the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital to

accept or reject the selection proceedings made by the Selection Committee.

3. WP(C)4972/2002 was allowed vide judgment dated 6th May, 2003

following the judgment in a similar petition filed by one Rajender Singh.

However, on 12th May, 2003 it was noticed that the Supreme Court in SLP

preferred against the judgment in the Rajender Singh case had stayed the

operation of the order. In the circumstances, the judgment dated 6th May, 2003

was ordered to be kept in abeyance. WP(C)862/2003 was directed to be heard

alongwith WP(C)4972/2002. Subsequently, on 30th October, 2003 the matters

were adjourned sine die to await the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Rajender Singh's case.

4. Rajender Singh's case being Union of India Vs. Rajender Singh Civil

Appeal No.3465/2003 has been decided by the Supreme Court on 26th

November, 2009. The Supreme Court has held that no advertisements for filling

up the posts aforesaid were issued. It was held that Article 16 of the

Constitution of India being an equality provision requires that before filling up

of any public posts an advertisement ought to be issued so that all eligible

persons can apply. Since the said posts had not been advertised, the entire

selection procedure was held to be bad. It was further observed that even a

selected candidate has no indefeasible right to appointment. Reliance in this

regard was placed on Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47.

The appeal was therefore allowed.

5. The matter in controversy having been settled by the Supreme Court,

these writ petitions are not maintainable. The order dated 6th May, 2003

allowing the WP(C) 4972/2002 is recalled. The writ petitions are dismissed.

However no order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 19th April, 2010/M