Mohd. Rashid Vs. The Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (15 Jan 2020)
A candidate seeking appointment to a civil post cannot have an indefeasible right to appointment merely because of appearance of his name in merit list
In facts of present case, the candidates who were initially appointed as Lower Division Clerks and promoted as Upper Division Clerks/Head Clerks invoked the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging Advertisement dated 12th September, 2013 whereby, the Respondents set in process to fill up the posts advertised by way of direct recruitment. The argument was that, the Recruitment Regulations for the post of Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor and Collector in North, South and East Delhi Municipal Corporations, 2013 contemplate that the vacancies for the posts in question are to be filled up by promotion failing which by direct recruitment. It was thus alleged that without resorting to promotion by convening meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the alternative process of direct recruitment cannot be resorted to. The said Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal by observing that the recruitment process is not against the constitutional provisions but the promotion must also not be tempered with.
In the writ petition directed against such order, the High Court held that, the Respondents have failed to comply with the Recruitment Rules and that only after the Respondents are unable to fill up the vacancies either by promotion or by transfer or by deputation, the Department would be entitled to publish the advertisement to fill up the vacancies. It was also found that, no effort has been made to hold DPC to carry out promotions nor the Respondents have explored the possibility to fill up the vacancies either by transfer or deputation.
The Recruitment Rules provides 50% quota to be filled up by promotion failing which by direct recruitment and another 50% by deputation quota failing which by direct recruitment are being followed by the Municipal Bodies. The Appellants who are aspirants for direct recruitment have no right for appointment merely because at one point of time, the vacancies were advertised. The candidates such as the Appellants cannot claim any right of appointment merely for the reason that they responded to an advertisement published on 12th September, 2013. Even after completion of the selection process, the candidates even on the merit list do not have any vested right to seek appointment only for the reason that their names appear on the merit list. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, a Constitution Bench of present Court held that, a candidate seeking appointment to a civil post cannot be regarded to have acquired an indefeasible right to appointment in such post merely because of the appearance of his name in the merit list.
Since the selection process has not been completed and in view the mandate of the Statutory Rules, the Appellants have no right to dispute the action of the Municipal Bodies to fill up the posts either by way of promotion or by deputation as such posts are being filled up in terms of mandate of the Rules. It is always open to the Municipal Bodies to fill up the vacant posts by way of direct recruitment after the posts by way of promotion and/or deputation quota are not filled up either on the basis of recruitment process already initiated or to be initiated afresh. Consequently, there is no merit in the present appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed.
Relevant : Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India MANU/SC/0373/1991
Tags : APPOINTMENT ELIGIBILITY RIGHT