9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The legal right of the respondent for appointment against the post of three security guards advertised by the appellant institute. Summary: The Supreme Court considered whether the respondent had a legal right to be appointed as a security guard. An advertisement was issued for three permanent security guard posts, and the respondent's name appeared on the select list. However, he was not offered an appointment while others were. The appellant later decided to contract out some services, including security guards. A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the respondent's writ petition, stating that the decision to abolish a post is a management decision and not arbitrary unless malice is proven. On appeal, the Division Bench held that the decision to contract out services did not abolish the vacancy, and the next person on the list should be considered for appointment. The appellant argued that the High Court erred in finding a temporary vacancy existed. Precedents were cited to show that inclusion in a select list does not guarantee appointment, and the State is not obligated to fill all vacancies. The respondent contended that no policy decision was made to contract out security services in his department, so he had a legitimate expectation of appointment. The Court emphasized that each case must be considered on its own merit. Citing various legal precedents, the Court reiterated that being on a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. The judgment of the High Court was upheld, noting that the respondent, an ex-serviceman, should have been offered the appointment when vacancies existed. The policy decision to abolish posts was made after the respondent filed the writ petition, and thus, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's decision. The appeal was dismissed.
|
