UNION OF INDIA Vs. K V V1JEESH
LAWS(SC)-1996-2-12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 27,1996

UNION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
K.V.VIJEESH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MADHUSUDAN BEHERA VS. DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ORI)-2009-3-113] [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN SINGH AND ANR. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2012-10-120] [REFERRED TO]
S.SAJEEV VS. KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD [LAWS(KER)-2020-11-508] [REFERRED TO]
P VIJAYAKUMAR VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR; TAHSILDAR AND DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-767] [REFERRED]
RANJAN KUMAR PANIGRAHI VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND 2 ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-12-116] [REFERRED TO]
SHATRUJEET LALS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1998-3-114] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2004-10-25] [REFERRED TO]
S K KANOJIA VS. BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS [LAWS(DLH)-2005-5-232] [REFERRED]
D. RAGHU VS. R. BASAVESWARUDU [LAWS(SC)-2020-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA PATHANIA VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY SHIMLA [LAWS(HPH)-2012-8-82] [REFERRED TO]
ASWINI KUMAR RAY VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
SANTI RANJAN BARMAN AND ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2001-8-96] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTI YADAV VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-232] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. L.R. MEENA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-424] [REFERRED TO]
MEENA KUMARI VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2008-5-124] [REFERRED TO]
C D SINGH VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2011-2-213] [REFERRED TO]
S K RAHI VS. BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS [LAWS(DLH)-2005-5-171] [REFERRED TO]
M HARIKRISHNAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2006-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
K RAMULU VS. S SURYAPRAKASH RAO [LAWS(SC)-1997-1-130] [FOLLOWED]
DEV RAJ VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2011-11-64] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. AB. GANI BHAT & ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2015-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
SOURAV ROUT VS. ODISHA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY [LAWS(ORI)-2023-5-220] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-8-10] [REFERRED TO]
SIDHARTH SOOD VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2019-9-183] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPABEN JAIDEEPBHAI MORI VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2010-7-566] [REFERRED TO]
SAHADEVA SINGH VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-2-560] [REFERRED TO]
ROOP KUMARI JOSHI & 20 ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-1-65] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KISHORE BEHERA VS. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ANR. [LAWS(ORI)-2009-1-77] [REFERRED TO]
S SHANMUGAM VS. DISTRICT COLECTOR KARUR [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-266] [REFERRED TO]
THE TELANGANA STATE POWER GENERATION CORPN. VS. NANDIPATI DAMODAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD VS. MAHADEB DAS [LAWS(CAL)-2008-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH PUSHKAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-117] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR & ORS VS. GOVT OF N C T OF DELHI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-251] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Special leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)By its Employment Notice No. 1/90, the Railway Recruitment Board invited applications for 308 vacancies in the post of Diesel Assistants in Palghat and Trivandrum Division of the Southern Railways. Among others the respondent applied for the above post, and on his success in the written examination and viva voce test held for the purpose, the Board included his name in the select list, published under Notification No. 4/91, dated March 25, 1991, and forwarded the same to the Southern Railway Administration recommending appointments therefrom. As in spite of his such inclusion in the panel he was not being given any appointment, he filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, contending inter alia, that even though in the select list his rank was 172 he had not been given appointment but persons lower in rank were appointed. Accordingly, he prayed for necessary directions for his appointment as a Diesel Assistant in accordance with his position in the panel.
(3.)In contesting the application the appellant-Railways contended that subsequent to the issuance of the notification dated March 25, 1991, the Railways had taken a policy decision that the requirement of Diesel Assistant Staff had to be reduced owing to impending absorption of Steam surplus staff. As a result, the bottom 25 persons in the select list had to be withdrawn from the list recommended for employment. The Railways further contended that the select list was not prepared in order of merit and that the respondent's contention that his rank in the list was 172 was incorrect. Indeed, according to the Railways, the respondent was at the bottom of the list and consequently his name, besides other's, had to be withdrawn on the reduction of the number of vacancies.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.