9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... post of three security guards advertised by the appellant institute. 3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. An advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of security guards. There were three permanent posts. The select list contained names of five candidates. The name of the respondent appeared at Sl. No. 4 therein. It was finalized on 11.04.2005. It had a validity period of one year i.e. upto 10.04.2006. Whereas two candidates were offered appointments on 13.04.2005 and 5.05.2005, the third candidate was offered appointment on 13.06.2005. He declined the same. Respondent, however, for reasons best known to the appellant, was not offered any appointment. He filed a writ petition questioning his non-appointment on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acant. It was resolved to abolish these vacant posts and services may be contracted out/ hired and ratify the decision of the Director not to fill the two vacant posts of Security Guards and Drivers on permanent basis. 6. A learned Single Judge of the High Court by a judgment and order dated 20.09.2006 inter alia opined: 5. I do not think that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. No doubt, the petitioner approached this Court on 12.12.2005. Ext. R1(b) decision is dated 29.12.2005. But, I do not think that that is sufficient to overturn the decision of the management. The question as to which are the posts to be filled up, is all a management decision. Ordinarily, it is not for this Court to veto the wisdom of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offered appointment. The decision contained in Ext. R1(b) is the decision taken by the Governing Body. The petitioner/ appellant need not challenge the decision taken by the Government Body, when there is no decision in Ext. R1(b) to abolish the post but only to fill up the permanent posts on contract basis. Then, the next person included in the list for regular appointment has to be considered. 8. Appellants are, thus, before us: 9. Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court committed a serious error in holding that there was a vacancy on a temporary basis. It was urged that keeping in view a number of decisions of this Court, the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily 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. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14. In Asha Kaul (Mrs.) and Anr. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1993)2SCC573 , this Court held: 8. It is true that mere inclusion in the select list does not confer upon the candidates included therein an indefeasible right to appointment (State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha; Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana: [1977]2SCR361 ; State of Kerala v. A. Lakshmikutty) but that is only one aspect of the matter. The other aspect is the obligation of the Government to act fairly. The whole exercise cannot be reduced to a farce. Having sent a requisition/request to the Commission to select a particular number of candidates for a particular category, in pursuance of which the Commission issues a notification, holds a written test, co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fide or arbitrariness on the part of the employer. Each case, therefore, must be considered on its own merit. 17. In All India SC ST Employees Association and Anr. v. A. Arthur Jeen and Ors. [2001]2SCR1183 , it was opined: 10. Merely because the names of the candidates were included in the panel indicating their provisional selection, they did not acquire any indefeasible right for appointment even against the existing vacancies and the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies as laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court, after referring to earlier cases in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India. [See also Malkiat Singh (supra), Pitta Naveen Kumar and Ors. v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti and Ors. (2006) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
