# RANJIT RANA AND ORS. ETC v. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1996] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 94
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1996-04-08
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 7516-17 of 1996
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, G.B. PATTANAl~
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ranjit-rana-and-ors-etc-v-the-state-of-bihar-and-ors-14251
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Se1vice Law :
c
Road/Building constmction and Public Works Department of State
Govenunent of Biha1~Assista11t Engineers in waiting list prepared by Public
Se1vice Commission for appointment-High Court giving direction to State
Govemment to identify vacancies existing as on 31.12.1987 and available for
appointment from among candidates in waiting list-High Court not satisfied
D with the stand of the State that no vacancies existed-Held, Govenunent
would make fresh exercise to identify the vacancies.

## Text

•
A
BIHAR STATE UNEMPLOYED CIVIL ENGINEERS
ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SH.
RANJIT RANA AND ORS. ETC.
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
B
APRIL 8, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAl~, JJ.]
Se1vice Law :
c
Road/Building constmction and Public Works Department of State
Govenunent of Biha1~Assista11t Engineers in waiting list prepared by Public
Se1vice Commission for appointment-High Court giving direction to State
Govemment to identify vacancies existing as on 31.12.1987 and available for
appointment from among candidates in waiting list-High Court not satisfied
D with the stand of the State that no vacancies existed-Held, Govenunent
would make fresh exercise to identify the vacancies.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7516-17
of 1996 Etc.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.93 of the Patna High
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2093 of 1989 and 3072 of 1990.
Gopal Subramaniam, Santosh Kumar and K.L. Mehta & Co for
Appellants.
F
B.B. Singh and R.P. Wadhwani for the Respondents,.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
..-
,__
Delay condoned.
G
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
The writ petitioners in the High Court as well as the State have come
up in these appeals. It is not necessary for us to elaborate all the material
H facts and also the contentions advanced in the High Court. Suffice it to
94
f
'
i
BIHAR STATE UNEMPLOYED CIVIL ENG RS. ASSN. v. STATE
95
state that the High Court of Patna in the impugned order dated November A
21, 1995 in CWJC Nos. 2093/89 and 3072/90 directed the Government to
identify the vacancies existing as on December 31, 1987 and available for
appointment from among the candidates in the waiting list as recommended by the Public Service Commission to the Assistant Engineers
(Civil). The High Court also found that the 200 posts earmarked by the B
Government in their resolution dated June 16, 1987 were intended for
Engineers in Rural Engineering Organisation but the writ petitioners have
no right to be appointed up to those posts from the wait listed candid;ites.
Shri Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing for the
writ petitioners contended that since the Public Service Commission had C
rejected the request of the State Government to regularise the ad hoc
employees holding these 200 posts in the Government Resolution dated
June 16, 1987, those posts should be made available to the candidates who
are wait listed. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that those 200
posts are meant to the Rural Engineering Organisation and not for D
Road/Building Construction and Public Works Department. Under those
circumstances, the necessary consequence would be that those 200 posts
should be made available for direct recruitment through the Public Service
Commission and the eligible candidates would apply for and get the
selection according to rules for appointment to those posts. It would be
open to the ad hoc employees also to apply for direct recruitment and seek E
selection according to rules.
With regard to the direction given by the Higb Court to identify the
existing vacancies as on December. 31, 1987 as per the Resolution of the
Government for being filled up by the wait listed candidates, we find no p
exception to the direction given by the High Court, on the peculiar facts in
this case. It is true that the court cam1ot give direction to fill up vacancies from
the waiting list after the lapse of one year. But in thi' case, the High Court
had given exception to the principle. An interim direction given earlier to keep
the waiting list alive was in operation till the disposal of the writ petition. The
Higb Court has also found that on the basis of the material on record, it WdS G
not possible for the court to record any finding as to the number of vacancies
existing as on December 31, 1987 so as to give direction to ftll up those posts
from the candidates available in the wailiAg list.
~ ''it is then contended for the Stale that a positive stand taken and the H
96
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
material placed before the High Court was that the vac~ncies meant for
the general candidates have already been filled up and that there were no
vacancies existing as on that date. It is true that the State has taken that
stand. But the High Court did not feel satisfied to accept the Government's
contention that no posts were available for appointment. Under those
B
c
circumstances, it would be for the Government to make afresh exercise to
identify where there exist vacancies meant either for general candidates or
for the reserved candidates and, if so, how many of them do exist so as to
till up the vacancies, if so identified, from among the candidates from
waiting list. If the Government finds that there are no vacancies existing,
the Government would place a report in this behalf before the High Court
accordingly.
The appeals are dismissed with the above observations. No costs.
R.P.
Appeals dismissed.
'