2000 JTR(SC) 680
2001 AIR(SCW) 2329 ; 2000 4 AWC 3010 ; 2000 87 FLR 28 ; 2000 2 GauLT 7 ; 2000 9 JT 168 ; 2001 LIC 2121 ; 2000 4 RSJ 180 ; 2000 9 SCC 283 ; 2000 SCC(L&S) 1098 ; 2001 1 SCT 63 ; 2000 5 SLR 114 ; 2000 7 SLT 692 ; 2000 KHC 4140
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : U.C.Banerjee
Munna Roy
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 2368 of 2000
Date of Decision : 4/3/00
An administrative decision to cancel a selection process because a candidate possesses qualifications higher than the minimum requirement is arbitrary and irrational, justifying judicial interference, despite the general rule that inclusion in a select list does not automatically confer a right to appointment.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
: Art.226, Art.136
(A) Administrative Law - Selection process - Right to appointment - Mere inclusion of a candidate's name in a select list does not confer a right to appointment, and consequently, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued on that ground alone. (Para 2)
(B) Judicial Review of Administrative Action - Arbitrariness and Irrationality - Administrative decisions can be interfered with by a court of law if the reasons for such decisions are erroneous, arbitrary, or irrational - If a candidate possesses a qualification higher than the minimum requirement prescribed in the advertisement, the authority cannot conclude that the selection was made using a "dubious method" - Such reasons for quashing a selection are not germane and are held to be arbitrary and irrational. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A candidate possessing a graduate degree applied for a post where the minimum qualification required was matriculation. The candidate successfully cleared the written test and the interview, and their name was included in the select list. However, no appointment letter was issued, and the recruitment board subsequently cancelled the entire selection panel. The ground for cancellation was that the candidate was a graduate despite the minimum requirement being matriculation, suggesting a dubious method had been adopted for selection. The tribunal set aside the cancellation, but the high court reversed this decision, holding that inclusion in the list does not grant a right to appointment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the reasons provided by the authorities to quash the selection were not germane. It held that possessing a higher qualification than the minimum required cannot be interpreted as the adoption of a dubious method of selection.
Issues: Whether the decision of the administrative authority to cancel the selection panel on the basis that a candidate possessed qualifications higher than the minimum requirement was arbitrary and irrational.
Ratio Decidendi: While the proposition that mere inclusion in a select list does not confer a right to appointment is correct, any administrative decision based on erroneous, arbitrary, or irrational reasons is subject to judicial interference. Penalizing a candidate for having higher qualifications than the minimum required is an irrational ground for canceling a selection process.
Result: Appeal disposed of; order of the high court and the order of the concerned authorities quashing the selection panel set aside, and the order of the tribunal directed to be implemented.
(B) Judicial Review of Administrative Action - Arbitrariness and Irrationality - Administrative decisions can be interfered with by a court of law if the reasons for such decisions are erroneous, arbitrary, or irrational - If a candidate possesses a qualification higher than the minimum requirement prescribed in the advertisement, the authority cannot conclude that the selection was made using a "dubious method" - Such reasons for quashing a selection are not germane and are held to be arbitrary and irrational. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A candidate possessing a graduate degree applied for a post where the minimum qualification required was matriculation. The candidate successfully cleared the written test and the interview, and their name was included in the select list. However, no appointment letter was issued, and the recruitment board subsequently cancelled the entire selection panel. The ground for cancellation was that the candidate was a graduate despite the minimum requirement being matriculation, suggesting a dubious method had been adopted for selection. The tribunal set aside the cancellation, but the high court reversed this decision, holding that inclusion in the list does not grant a right to appointment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the reasons provided by the authorities to quash the selection were not germane. It held that possessing a higher qualification than the minimum required cannot be interpreted as the adoption of a dubious method of selection.
Issues: Whether the decision of the administrative authority to cancel the selection panel on the basis that a candidate possessed qualifications higher than the minimum requirement was arbitrary and irrational.
Ratio Decidendi: While the proposition that mere inclusion in a select list does not confer a right to appointment is correct, any administrative decision based on erroneous, arbitrary, or irrational reasons is subject to judicial interference. Penalizing a candidate for having higher qualifications than the minimum required is an irrational ground for canceling a selection process.
Result: Appeal disposed of; order of the high court and the order of the concerned authorities quashing the selection panel set aside, and the order of the tribunal directed to be implemented.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE appellant, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Railway Recruitment Board for the post of Craft Teacher (Bengali Medium), applied for the same. She possesses qualification of a graduate. On the basis of a written test held thereafter, she was successful, and then was called for the interview. But after the interview was over and a select list was published wherein her name also appeared but as no appointment letter was issued, she moved the Central Administrative Tribunal. While the application was pending before the Tribunal, the Railway Recruitment Board cancelled the panel by order dated 5.9.1996 on the ground that there has been sufficient irregularities in the matter of selection, the appellant, therefore, filed an application before the Tribunal for setting aside the order of cancellation and directing the Board to complete the recruitment process. The Tribunal allowed the said application. Against the order of the Tribunal, the matter was taken to the High Court and the High Court having interfered with the order of the Tribunal, the appellant has approached this Court. The High Court while interfering with the order of the Tribunal, has taken into consideration the fact that mere inclusion of a persons name in the list does not confer any right and, therefore, Mandamus cannot be issued. The aforesaid enunciation as a proposition of law cannot be disputed. However, if the administrative authority takes a decision and the reasons for such decision are erroneous then such a decision can be interfered with by Court of Law. In the case in hand the appellant pursuant to an advertisement had applied for and she had the requisite qualification. She became successful in the written test as well as in the viva-voce. The list of successful candidates included her name but the ground for cancellation of the entire list without even informing the appellant was that though the minimum qualification required was a matriculate she was a graduate and thus dubious method has been adopted for being selected. We really fail to understand that if a candidate possesses a qualification higher than the required qualification and the advertisement itself had prescribed the same then how can the authority come to a conclusion that selection has been made by adopting a dubious metnod. In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the reasons which weighed with the authorities to quash the selection are not germane and must be held to be arbitrary and irrational. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the concerned authorities quashing the selection panel and direct that the order of the Tribunal be implemented.
(3) THE appeal is disposed of.