WP(C) 4972/2002 & 862/2003 Page 1 of 3 *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 WP(C) 4972/2002 & 862/2003 Page 2 of 3 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 WP(C) 4972/2002 & 862/2003 Page 3 of 3 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