Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from recruitment for the post of Diesel Assistant in the Palghat and Trivandrum Divisions of the Southern Railways. Pursuant to Employment Notice No. 1/90, the Railway Recruitment Board invited applications for 308 vacancies. The respondent, K.V. Vijeesh, applied, succeeded in the written examination and viva voce test, and his name was included in the select list published under Notification No. 4/91 dated March 25, 1991. The list was forwarded to the Southern Railway Administration recommending appointments. However, the respondent was not given an appointment despite his inclusion in the panel. He filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, contending that his rank in the select list was 172 and that persons lower in rank had been appointed. He prayed for directions for his appointment as Diesel Assistant in accordance with his position in the panel. The Railways contested the application, stating that subsequent to the notification, a policy decision was taken to reduce the requirement of Diesel Assistant staff owing to impending absorption of Steam surplus staff. Consequently, the bottom 25 persons in the select list were withdrawn from the list recommended for employment.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select list was not prepared in order of merit and that the respondent was at the bottom of the list, so his name was withdrawn due to reduction in vacancies. The Tribunal accepted that the select list was not prepared in order of merit and that the Railways had the right to adjust vacancies, but observed that successful candidates who could not be accommodated due to reduction should be employed subsequently when vacancies arose. Relying on Prem Prakash v. Union of India, the Tribunal directed the Southern Railways to consider the respondent for appointment as Diesel Assistant in any existing or next available vacancy on the basis that his name had been recommended. The Union of India challenged this order before the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether a candidate whose name appears in a select list based on a competitive examination acquires a right of appointment in Government service in an existing or future vacancy. The Supreme Court, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, held that successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed merely because vacancies were notified and adequate candidates found fit. A notification is only an invitation to qualified candidates; the State is under no legal duty to fill all vacancies unless recruitment rules so provide. However, the State cannot act arbitrarily, and when filling vacancies, it must respect comparative merit. The Court found that Prem Prakash was distinguishable because in that case a specific notification provided that appointed candidates had the responsibility to be appointed even if vacancies changed. No such rule existed here. Examining records, the Court confirmed that the respondent was at the bottom of the list and appointments were made according to comparative merit, so no arbitrariness or discrimination was shown. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and made no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Right to Appointment from Select List - Not mentioned - A candidate whose name was included in a select list on the basis of a competitive examination did not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment in government service in existing or future vacancies. A recruitment notification merely amounted to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply, and unless relevant recruitment rules indicated otherwise, the State was under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, the decision not to fill up vacancies had to be taken bona fide, and when vacancies were filled, the State was bound to respect comparative merit of candidates and could not discriminate. Held that the Tribunal's direction to appoint the respondent solely because his name was included in the select list was unsustainable in absence of any recruitment rule conferring such a right. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Service Law - Judicial Review - Arbitrariness in Recruitment - Not mentioned - The Supreme Court examined relevant records of the Railways to ascertain whether the Railway Administration had acted arbitrarily in rejecting the respondent's claim and whether appointments were made according to comparative merits. The records indicated that the respondent was placed at the bottom of the select list and that appointments were made according to comparative merits of candidates. Held that the rejection of the respondent's claim was not arbitrary or discriminatory, and the impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a candidate whose name appears in a select list on the basis of a competitive examination acquires a right of appointment in Government service in an existing or a future vacancy.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam set aside; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- No indefeasible right to appointment from inclusion in select list unless recruitment rules so provide
- notification is merely an invitation to qualified candidates to apply
- State under no legal duty to fill all or any vacancies
- decision not to fill up vacancies must be taken bona fide
- when vacancies are filled State must respect comparative merit
- no discrimination can be permitted
