SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik and U.C. Banerjee, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2000, Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13831 of 1999. D/d. 10.1.2000.

Kishore K. Pati - Appellant

Versus

Distt. Inspector of Schools, Midnapore and others - Respondents

Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, Sections 3 and 5 - Service Law - Recruitment process - Sources of recruitment - Employment Exchange - Wrong view that a candidate not sponsored by employment exchange not to be interviewed - Division Bench was totally in error to annul the appointment after interviewing him pursuant to the orders of the Single Judge which has attained finality, is without jurisdiction - The appellant be entitled to the salary from the date he jointed - Held, no irregular when the interviewed candidate is not sponsored by employment exchange.

[Paras 3 to 5]

ORDER

G.B. Pattanaik, J. - Leave granted.

2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was justified in annulling the recruitment in favour of the appellant on the sole ground that in the absence of any sponsoring by the employment exchange, the petitioner could not have at all been considered for the post in question.

3. It transpires that the learned Single Judge by orders dated 16-11-1998 and 19-12-1998 directed the authorities concerned to consider the case of the present appellant as well as Respondent 7 in interview notwithstanding the fact that their names had not been sponsored by the employment exchange. This view of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be erroneous. Pursuant to the said order, the appellant and Respondent 7 did appear in the interview and though the appellant was found suitable, yet Respondent 7 was found unsuitable. The orders of the learned Single Judge directing the authorities to allow the appellant and Respondent 7 to be interviewed were not assailed and thus became final. In that view of the matter, in the second round of litigation, the Division Bench was totally in error to annul the appointment made in favour of the appellant after interviewing him pursuant to the orders of the learned Single Judge, which has attained finality, is without jurisdiction and we are of the considered opinion that the Division Bench was in error in setting aside the appointment of the appellant.

4. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for Respondent 7 contended that in the writ appeal filed by him before the Division Bench, he has raised several questions which have not been answered and therefore it would be appropriate for this Court to remit the matter to the Division Bench for redisposal. On going through the counter-affidavit and the impugned judgment of the High Court, we do not find any contention raised not being answered by the Division Bench. On the other hand, the Division Bench has disposed of the appeal on the ground that the consideration of the case of the appellant and Respondent 7 whose case has not been sponsored by the employment exchange is not sustainable in law and as we have said earlier, the said view is not correct. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and allow this appeal.

5. Needless to mention that the appellant would be entitled to the salary from the date he joined pursuant to the orders passed in his favour.

6. This appeal stands allowed accordingly.

Appeal allowed.