Page 1

NON­REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.210 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.11551 of 2015   

   STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.     ... APPELLANT(S)  

               VS.

   TUHIN SULTAN MALLICK & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

       J U D G M E N T

KURIAN,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondents have complained of

non­implementation, rather violation of order dated

26th  June, 2009 passed by the West Bengal

Administrative Tribunal.   The issue pertains to

appointment to the post of Lower Division Assistant.

In the order referred to above, it was held as

follows:

“So assessing the aforesaid undisputed position in these two applications (being No.OA­3092 of 2007 as also OA­3811 of 2008), we find that these 6 petitioners all are qualified to be considered for appointment to the aforesaid posts.  The aforesaid position however has not been disputed from the side of the State respondents.

1

Page 2

Consequently, we direct the concerned State Respondent to issue orders for appointment in accordance with law for the aforesaid posts in favour of these 6 petitioners within a period of 15 days from the date of communication of this order after observing all necessary formalities.”

3. The operative portion of the order, no

doubt, contains a direction for appointment after

observing the required formalities. But the same has

to be understood in the background of the earlier

finding by the Tribunal that the writ

petitioners­respondents herein had been qualified to

be considered for appointment as Lower Division

Assistants.   In other words, the Tribunal in the

order only intended that the writ petitioners had

become eligible for consideration for appointment as

Lower Division Assistants. It has come out on facts

that their turn had not arisen and before their turn

matured, the vacancies had already been filled up.

Therefore, there was no scope for any appointment.

It appears that the High Court missed this crucial

aspect and thus went wrong in issuing a direction for

appointment.

2

Page 3

4. In view of the above, we set aside the

impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal is

accordingly allowed.

Pending application, if any, also stands

disposed of.         

......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]         

 .......................J. [A.M.KHANWILKAR]         

New Delhi; January 6, 2017.

3

Page 4

4