SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 425

1997(3) Supreme 319
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
 Sri Sanjoy Bhattacharjee -Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6175 of 1997
(CC-2264/97)
Decided on 10-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Sarla Chandra and Pradeep Mukherjee, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Mere because a person is put in waiting list, he does not get any vested right to an appointment and for subsequent vacancies, every one in open market would be entitled to apply for consideration of his/her claim on merit.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Petitioner s ranking on merit was 779-Vacancies notified were 480-Selection was made only for filling up 480 vacancies-Tribunal was right to hold that petition did not get any vested right to be appointed merely because he was put in waiting list-For subsequent vacancies everyone in open market was entitled to apply for consideration of his/her claim on merits. (Paras 3 & 4)

       

ORDER

Delay condoned.

2. This special leave petition has been filed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, made on July 8, 1996 made in O.A. No. 879/93.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner, having acquired Diploma in Engineering, had applied for and stood selected as Technician. The vacancies notified were 480. His ranking no merit is 779. Since he was not appointed to the post, he filed the O.A. in the Tribunal. It was contended that while he was looking forward to his appointment in accordance with the selection, instead of making the appointment the authorities issued notification for fresh recruitment, thus, defeating the right of the petitioner and others similarly situated. Therefore, direction to the respondent-authorities to appoint him, as per his ranking in the select list for the year 1989 was sought. Stay of fresh recruitment till the said list got exhausted, was also sought. The Tribunal has dismissed the petition holding that mere putting a candidate in the select list does not confer on him any right to appointment. Selection was made only for filling up 480 vacancies; after the absorption thereof, selection has to be made for the subsequent vacancies from the open market and, therefore, directions sought could not be given. We find that the reasons given by the Tribunal are well justified. Merely because the petitioner has been put in the waiting list, he does not get any vested right to an appointment. It is not his case that any one below his ranking in the waiting list has been appointed which could give him cause for grievance. Thus, he cannot seek any direction for his appointment.

4. For subsequent vacancies, every one in the open market is entitled to apply for consideration of his/her claim on merit in accordance with law and it would be consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, direction sought for not to fill up the vacancies having arisen subsequently until the candidates in the waiting list are exhausted, cannot be granted. The Tribunal rightly refused to grant any such direction.

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

 

********

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top