Sri Sanjoy Bhattacharjee vs Union Of India & Ors
- Neutral1997 INSC 250
- AIRAIR 1997 SC 2179
- SCR[1997] 2 SCR 915
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A candidate who is placed in a waiting list or select list following a selection process for a specific number of notified vacancies does not acquire a vested right to appointment merely by virtue of such placement, and subsequent vacancies arising after the notified positions are filled must be advertised afresh and opened to all eligible candidates from the open market. Where a candidate has not been appointed despite selection, but no candidate ranked below him has been appointed in his stead, he has no cause of action to seek a direction for his own appointment or to stay fresh recruitment until the waiting list is exhausted, as such a direction would be inconsistent with Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
This special leave petition has been filed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, made on July 8, 1996 made in O.A No. 879/93.
Admittedly, the petitioner, having acquired Diploma in Engineering, had applied for and stood selected as Technician. The vacancies notified were 480. His ranking on merit is 779. Since he was not appointed to the post, he filed the D.A in the Tribunal. It was contended that while he was looking for ward to his appointment in accordance with the selection, instead of making the appointment the authorities issued notification for fresh recruitment, thus , defeating the right of the petitioner and others similarly situated. Therefore, direction to the respondent authorities to appoint him, as per his ranking in the select list for the year 1989 was sought. stay of fresh recruitment till the said list got exhausted, was also sought. The Tribunal has dismissed the petition holding that mere putting a candidate in the select list does not confer on him any right to appointment. Selection was made only for filling up 480 vacancies; after the absorption thereof, selection has to be made for the subsequent vacancies from the open market and,. therefore, directions sought could not be given. We find that the reasons given . We find that the reasons given by the Tribunal are well justified. Merely because the petitioner has been put in the waiting list, he does not get any vested right to an appointment. It is not his case that any one below his ranking in the waiting list has been appointed which could give him cause for grievance. Thus, he cannot seek any direction for his appointment.
For subsequent vacancies, every one in the open market is entitled to apply for consideration of his/her claim on merit in accordance with law and it would be consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, direction sought for not to fill up the vacancies having arisen subsequently until the candidates in the waiting list are exhausted, cannot be granted. The Tribunal rightly refused to grant any such direction.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
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