Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a recruitment process for Assistant Teachers in Bihar. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar issued an advertisement on 7.8.1988 inviting applications. The respondents applied and were interviewed by a Selection Committee in July 1989. A panel of 273 candidates, including the respondents, was prepared on 19.1.1991. The Director approved 98 names on 30.1.1991, comprising 47 general, 43 Scheduled Tribes, 6 Scheduled Castes, and 2 handicapped candidates. Of these, 91 joined. The remaining candidates were placed on a revised waiting list prepared on 26.8.1991. Some candidates who were not appointed filed a writ petition in the High Court on 20.1.1992, and by an interim order, the panel was not allowed to lapse. The Government Basic School, Assistant Teachers Service Encadrement, Appointment and Transfer Rules, 1975, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, provided that every teacher would be appointed on probation for two years and that the list of candidates prepared for direct appointments would be valid for one year from the date of approval of the project by the Selection Committee. The main legal issues were whether a candidate on a waiting list has an indefeasible right to appointment, whether the select list had lapsed before the filing of the writ petition, and whether the State's refusal to appoint due to a proposed change in reservation policy was arbitrary, irrational, or mala fide. The State argued that the panel expired on 18.1.1992, one year after its preparation on 19.1.1991, and that the writ petition filed on 20.1.1992 was after expiry. It also contended that candidates on a waiting list have no right to appointment and that the policy change justified halting further appointments. The respondents contended that there were 160 vacancies at the time of advertisement and that the Department could not arbitrarily refuse to appoint from the panel after raising legitimate expectations. The Supreme Court held that the select list had lapsed by force of Rule 5(6) on 18.1.1992 and that the High Court had erred in observing that the petition was filed before expiry. Relying on Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment unless the rules indicate otherwise. It further held that the State was entitled in law to change its reservation policy consistent with the Constitution and was not obliged to fill up existing vacancies if it was considering a policy change. The Court found that the State had not acted mala fide or arbitrarily merely because it decided to suspend all further appointments from existing panels pending amendment of reservation rules. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the original writ petition. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment from Waiting List - No indefeasible right to appointment - Constitution of India, Article 309; Government Basic School, Assistant Teachers Service Encadrement, Appointment and Transfer Rules, 1975, Rule 5(6) - Empanelment of candidates did not confer a right to appointment; even if vacancies were notified and adequate candidates found fit, successful candidates do not acquire indefeasible right unless rules provide otherwise - Held that State can refuse to appoint for bona fide reasons (Paras 2-3). B) Service Law - Validity of Select List - Statutory rule limiting panel life to one year from approval by Selection Committee - Government Basic School, Assistant Teachers Service Encadrement, Appointment and Transfer Rules, 1975, Rule 5(6) - Panel prepared on 19.1.1991 expired on 18.1.1992; writ petition filed on 20.1.1992 after expiry; continuance beyond one year would violate statutory rule - Held High Court erred in observing petition filed before expiry; list lapsed by force of rule (Paras 3-4). C) Service Law - Change in Reservation Policy - State's power to alter policy and halt appointments from old panels - Constitution of India, Article 309; Government Basic School, Assistant Teachers Service Encadrement, Appointment and Transfer Rules, 1975, Rule 5(6) - Government decided to revise reservation policy and placed embargo on recruitment from old waiting lists; decision not arbitrary or mala fide; High Court's doubt about dispensing with training without examining policy was premature - Held refusal to appoint based on proposed policy change valid (Paras 4-5). D) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review of Policy Decisions - Courts cannot anticipate policy and brand it unreasonable without knowing nature of change - Government Basic School, Assistant Teachers Service Encadrement, Appointment and Transfer Rules, 1975 - High Court's observation that appointment of untrained teachers over trained panel was not in public interest was speculative; such policy challenge requires full facts - Held High Court's finding of arbitrariness reversed (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a candidate on a waiting list has a right to appointment; whether the select list lapsed before filing of writ petition; whether State's refusal to appoint due to change in reservation policy was arbitrary, irrational or mala fide; whether High Court erred in entertaining petition after list lapsed.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the original writ petition. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Candidates on waiting list have no indefeasible right to appointment
- select list valid only for one year under statutory rules
- State may change reservation policy and halt appointments from old panels
- refusal based on policy change not arbitrary if bona fide
- statutory rules framed under Article 309 have binding force
