State Of Assam And Ors. vs Prafulla Goswami
- SCC(1998) 8 SCC 531
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an interim order of court has been in place for an extended period and serious allegations are made that the State has failed to comply with it, the court may, before proceeding to hear the substantive appeal, direct the State to file detailed compliance materials showing: (1) a correct select list with names in order of merit; (2) which selected candidates have received appointments; (3) which candidates from the select list received appointments after the interim order; (4) how many vacancies after the relevant period were filled from the select list; (5) year-wise vacancies occurring after the relevant period and allocations from the select list; (6) year-wise appointments of candidates not on the select list; and (7) candidates from the select list who remain unappointed, to enable the court to adjudicate the contempt allegations and determine compliance with the interim order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
In view of the serious allegations made against the State of Assam regarding flouting the interim order of this Court dated 17-1-1992, we propose to take the hearing of the contempt petition first before considering the appeal of the State of Assam. As per the interim order of 17-1-1992, the State of Assam was required: (1) to prepare a correct select list of the candidates selected pursuant to the advertisement of 1986 showing the names of the candidates selected in the order of merit; (2) the State of Assam was directed to make all further appointments until final hearing, strictly on the basis of the correct select list insofar as vacancies of 1986, 1987 and 1988 were concerned; (3) the State of Assam was also directed to fill in any further vacancies for subsequent years on the basis of the correct select list on an ad hoc basis at least till a fresh list is prepared in accordance with law. We, therefore, direct that the State of Assam shall file a correct select list showing the names of all the candidates selected under the 1986 advertisement in the order of merit. The State is further directed to indicate against the name of each selected candidate whether he has been given appointment pursuant to his selection. The State shall also indicate whether any persons on the select list who were not appointed prior to the interim order have been given appointments pursuant to the interim order of 17-1-1992, indicating the year of the vacancy against which they have been appointed. The State shall also indicate how many vacancies occurring after 1988 have been filled from out of the candidates on the select list. The State shall also indicate year wise, after 1988, the number of vacancies occurring during each subsequent year and the number of vacancies allotted to the candidates on the select list of 1986, out of these vacancies. The State shall also set out year wise appointments made of candidates not on the select list of 1986. The State shall also file a list of candidates on the select list of 1986 who have not been granted appointment so far. Since six years have elapsed from the date of the interim order and proper material is not forthcoming, we are constrained to give these directions. The State shall file the detailed lists as indicated above within four weeks from today. Looking to the grave charges made, the Commissioner, Secretary of Education and the Director of Elementary Education, State of Assam, to remain present on the next date of hearing, i.e., 6-5-1998 with all relevant papers.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free