1997 JTR(SC) 745
1997 AIR(SC) 2619 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 2577 ; 1997 2 AllCJ 1148 ; 1997 2 CLR 7 ; 1997 2 CTC 492 ; 1997 76 FLR 606 ; 1997 5 JT 368 ; 1997 1 KLT(SN) 68 ; 1997 LIC 2648 ; 1997 4 LLN 504 ; 1997 3 RSJ 442 ; 1997 4 Scale 155 ; 1997 5 SCC 170 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 1140 ; 1997 2 SCJ 36 ; 1997 3 SCR 1046 ; 1997 3 SCT 26 ; 1997 4 SLR 313 ; 1997 KHC 264 ; 1997 4 Supreme 608
1997(4) Supreme 608
Supreme Court of India
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
K. Jayamohan -Appellant
versus
State of Kerala & Anr.
-Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3384 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 831 of 1997)
Decided on 25-4-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Advocate, Ajit Pudussery, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Ms. Malini Poduval and N. Sudhakaran, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because a candidate is selected and kept in waiting list, he does not acquire any absolute right for appointment.
Act Referred :SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The relevant statutory framework under the Service Law and the Kerala Collegiate Education Service Special Rules, 1994, as amended, governs the procedures for recruitment to lecturer positions in the public service sector, particularly concerning advertisement, selection through written tests and interviews, preparation of select lists, and the legal consequences of non-appointment from such lists. The amendment introduced higher qualification requirements with retrospective effect, impacting eligibility for appointment from waiting lists.
(B) Key legal principles include that selection for a waiting list does not confer an absolute right to appointment, the appointing authority has discretion to make or withhold appointments even when vacancies exist, and a reasonable explanation is required for non-appointment. The Public Service Commissions role is limited to preparing the list to the extent of anticipated vacancies, and judicial review will not interfere if the decision is reasonable.
Facts of the case:
Two posts of Lecturer in Physical Education were advertised in 1988. Written tests and oral interviews were conducted in 1992, and a select list of 10 candidates was prepared. The appellant stood tenth and was not initially appointed. After representations were rejected based on the amended rules requiring higher qualifications, a writ petition was filed. The High Court held that inclusion in the select list did not create an absolute right to appointment.
Findings of Court:
The High Court determined that merely being on the select list does not guarantee appointment, and the authorities are not obligated to fill every vacancy. The decision not to appoint the appellant was upheld as valid under the amended rules, and no error was found in the original judgment.
Issues:
Whether a candidate on a waiting list has a legally enforceable right to be appointed, and whether non-appointment without filling existing vacancies violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi:
The ratio is that selection for a waiting list does not create a substantive right to appointment; the appointing authority retains discretion, and non-appointment is permissible if the reasons are reasonable and the recruitment process adheres to statutory rules.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs awarded.
(A) The relevant statutory framework under the Service Law and the Kerala Collegiate Education Service Special Rules, 1994, as amended, governs the procedures for recruitment to lecturer positions in the public service sector, particularly concerning advertisement, selection through written tests and interviews, preparation of select lists, and the legal consequences of non-appointment from such lists. The amendment introduced higher qualification requirements with retrospective effect, impacting eligibility for appointment from waiting lists.
(B) Key legal principles include that selection for a waiting list does not confer an absolute right to appointment, the appointing authority has discretion to make or withhold appointments even when vacancies exist, and a reasonable explanation is required for non-appointment. The Public Service Commissions role is limited to preparing the list to the extent of anticipated vacancies, and judicial review will not interfere if the decision is reasonable.
Facts of the case:
Two posts of Lecturer in Physical Education were advertised in 1988. Written tests and oral interviews were conducted in 1992, and a select list of 10 candidates was prepared. The appellant stood tenth and was not initially appointed. After representations were rejected based on the amended rules requiring higher qualifications, a writ petition was filed. The High Court held that inclusion in the select list did not create an absolute right to appointment.
Findings of Court:
The High Court determined that merely being on the select list does not guarantee appointment, and the authorities are not obligated to fill every vacancy. The decision not to appoint the appellant was upheld as valid under the amended rules, and no error was found in the original judgment.
Issues:
Whether a candidate on a waiting list has a legally enforceable right to be appointed, and whether non-appointment without filling existing vacancies violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi:
The ratio is that selection for a waiting list does not create a substantive right to appointment; the appointing authority retains discretion, and non-appointment is permissible if the reasons are reasonable and the recruitment process adheres to statutory rules.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs awarded.
ORDER
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Kerala, made on 25.7.1996 in Writ Appeal No. 997/96.
3. The admitted facts are the two posts of Lecturers in Physical Education were advertised for recruitment in the year 1988 through the Public Service Commission. Written Test and oral interviews were conducted in the year 1992 and the Select List, a long list of 10 candidates was prepared by the Public Service Commission; the appellant stood at No. 10 in the said list. Two other candidates selected have already been appointed. Since there often exist some vacancies, the appellant, one of the selected candidates, made a representation to appoint him. That was rejected on the ground that pursuant to the amendment to the Kerala Collegiate Education Service Special Rules, 1994, which came into force with retrospective effect from March 13, 1990, higher qualifications were prescribed and since the appellant did not fulfill the requisite qualification, he was not eligible and could not be appointed. When the appellant filed writ petition, the single Judge and on appeal the Division Bench of the High Court held that merely because he was kept in the select list, he acquired no absolute right to appointment and it is not incumbent upon the authorities to appoint him. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
4. Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel for the appellant, whether when asked to find out the selection is made only to two posts or more, points out from page No. 2 of the Judgment of the High Court that the advertisement is only for two posts. In view of the fact that the advertisement was restricted to the existing vacancies, namely, two posts, it is not incumbent upon the authorities to appoint the candidate from the waiting list. He has no right to appointment. It is contended that such an appointment is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India as the candidates eligible when selected are denied of the opportunity for applying for selection and get their rights tested.
5. It is settled legal position that merely because a candidate is selected and kept in the waiting list, he does not acquire any absolute right for appointment. It is open to the Government to make the appointment or not. Even if there is any vacancy, it is not incumbent upon the Government to fill up the same. But the appointing authority must give reasonable explanation for non-appointment. Equally, the Public Service Commission/recruitment agency shall prepare waiting list only to the extent of anticipated vacancies. In view of the above settled legal position, no error is found in the judgment of the High Court warranting interference.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
********