1997 JTR(SC) 425
1997 AIR(SC) 2179 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 2033 ; 1997 2 AllCJ 926 ; 1997 2 ALT(SC) 26 ; 1997 BBCJ(SC) 131 ; 1997 1 CLR 842 ; 1997 3 JT 736 ; 1997 2 LLN 973 ; 1997 2 PLJR(SC) 60 ; 1997 2 RSJ 511 ; 1997 3 Scale 103 ; 1997 4 SCC 283 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 1069 ; 1997 1 SCJ 644 ; 1997 2 SCR 915 ; 1997 2 SCT 339 ; 1997 2 SLJ 207 ; 1997 2 SLR 44 ; 1997 WBLR 261 ; 1997 KHC 1647 ; 1997 3 Supreme 319
1997(3) Supreme 319
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Sri Sanjoy Bhattacharjee -Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6175 of 1997
(CC-2264/97)
Decided on 10-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Sarla Chandra and Pradeep Mukherjee, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Mere because a person is put in waiting list, he does not get any vested right to an appointment and for subsequent vacancies, every one in open market would be entitled to apply for consideration of his/her claim on merit.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.14, Art.16(1)
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The provisions of Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution govern equality before law and equal opportunity in public employment. In this case, these constitutional articles provide the framework for assessing whether a candidate on a waiting list has a legally enforceable right to appointment when vacancies are filled subsequently through fresh recruitment. The service law principles derived from these constitutional guarantees require that selection must be made solely for filling the notified vacancies and do not ripen into a vested right merely by inclusion in a waiting list.
(B) Key legal principles include that inclusion in a waiting list or selection list does not confer a vested right to appointment, the right to apply on merit applies to open market recruitment for subsequent vacancies, and authorities are not bound to exhaust waiting lists before filling new vacancies. The principle of equality under Article 14 and equal opportunity under Article 16(1) do not mandate filling subsequent vacancies from waiting lists.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, who had acquired a Diploma in Engineering, applied for and was selected as a Technician based on a notification inviting 480 vacancies. His ranking in the merit list was 779, and he was not appointed. He filed an appeal before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking directions for his appointment based on his ranking and a stay on fresh recruitment, contending that the issuance of a fresh recruitment notification defeated his right. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, holding that being placed in a waiting list does not create any vested right to appointment.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that mere inclusion in a waiting list does not confer any legal right to appointment because selection was made only to fill the 480 notified vacancies. After these vacancies were absorbed, subsequent vacancies are to be filled from the open market in accordance with law. The Court observed that no one below the petitioner in the waiting list was appointed, and therefore, he had no cause for grievance. The Tribunals reasoning was held to be well justified.
Issues:
Whether inclusion in a waiting list creates a vested right to appointment; whether authorities are obligated to exhaust waiting lists before filling subsequent vacancies; and whether fresh recruitment for subsequent vacancies violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi:
The core judicial reasoning is that selection lists for a limited number of vacancies do not ripen into a vested right to appointment, and subsequent vacancies must be filled through open market recruitment in compliance with constitutional provisions of equality and equal opportunity, without being bound to exhaust waiting lists.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed, and the petition is refused.
(A) The provisions of Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution govern equality before law and equal opportunity in public employment. In this case, these constitutional articles provide the framework for assessing whether a candidate on a waiting list has a legally enforceable right to appointment when vacancies are filled subsequently through fresh recruitment. The service law principles derived from these constitutional guarantees require that selection must be made solely for filling the notified vacancies and do not ripen into a vested right merely by inclusion in a waiting list.
(B) Key legal principles include that inclusion in a waiting list or selection list does not confer a vested right to appointment, the right to apply on merit applies to open market recruitment for subsequent vacancies, and authorities are not bound to exhaust waiting lists before filling new vacancies. The principle of equality under Article 14 and equal opportunity under Article 16(1) do not mandate filling subsequent vacancies from waiting lists.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, who had acquired a Diploma in Engineering, applied for and was selected as a Technician based on a notification inviting 480 vacancies. His ranking in the merit list was 779, and he was not appointed. He filed an appeal before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking directions for his appointment based on his ranking and a stay on fresh recruitment, contending that the issuance of a fresh recruitment notification defeated his right. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, holding that being placed in a waiting list does not create any vested right to appointment.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that mere inclusion in a waiting list does not confer any legal right to appointment because selection was made only to fill the 480 notified vacancies. After these vacancies were absorbed, subsequent vacancies are to be filled from the open market in accordance with law. The Court observed that no one below the petitioner in the waiting list was appointed, and therefore, he had no cause for grievance. The Tribunals reasoning was held to be well justified.
Issues:
Whether inclusion in a waiting list creates a vested right to appointment; whether authorities are obligated to exhaust waiting lists before filling subsequent vacancies; and whether fresh recruitment for subsequent vacancies violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi:
The core judicial reasoning is that selection lists for a limited number of vacancies do not ripen into a vested right to appointment, and subsequent vacancies must be filled through open market recruitment in compliance with constitutional provisions of equality and equal opportunity, without being bound to exhaust waiting lists.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed, and the petition is refused.
ORDER
Delay condoned.
2. 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.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner, having acquired Diploma in Engineering, had applied for and stood selected as Technician. The vacancies notified were 480. His ranking no merit is 779. Since he was not appointed to the post, he filed the O.A. in the Tribunal. It was contended that while he was looking forward 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 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.
4. 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.
Petition dismissed.
********