9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Indefeasible right of appointment for candidates on the merit list. 2. Discrimination in filling up vacancies between general and reserved categories. 3. Arbitrary action by authorities in not filling up vacancies. Summary: 1. Indefeasible Right of Appointment: The primary issue was whether a candidate whose name appears in the merit list on the basis of a competitive examination acquires an indefeasible right of appointment as a Government servant if a vacancy exists. The Court held that "it is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied." The notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment, and on their selection, they do not acquire any right to the post. The State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate. 2. Discrimination in Filling Up Vacancies: The appellant argued that the authorities acted arbitrarily by not filling up the general category vacancies while filling up the reserved category vacancies. The Court found that the process for the reserved category was relaxed in pursuance of a policy decision taken after examining all relevant circumstances and materials. The decision to adopt a different policy for the reserved category was justified due to the unavailability of qualified candidates from year to year, which adversely affected the desired strength of the reserved candidates in the services. The Court held that "the appellant's plea of alleged discrimination does not have any merit." 3. Arbitrary Action by Authorities: The appellant contended that the authorities acted arbitrarily in keeping the vacancies arising later unfilled. The Court examined the relevant departmental files and affidavits and found that there was no arbitrariness on the part of the respondent in filling up the vacancies. The process of final selection had to be closed at some stage, and a decision in this regard was taken accordingly. The Court stated, "From the materials produced before us it is fully established that there has not been any arbitrariness whatsoever on the part of the respondent in filling up the vacancies in question or the other vacancies referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant." Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the Court concluded that the appellant did not have an indefeasible right to be appointed to the IPS vacancies that arose later. The authorities' actions were not arbitrary, and the different policy adopted for the reserved category was justified. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
|
