1. Recruitment for Class III posts — Selection without preparing a merit list or calling for options — Challenge to the arbitrariness of appointment under Article 14. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 691
1997(5) Supreme 35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
State of Bihar -Appellant
versus
Kumar Promod Narain Singh & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1607 of 1987
Decided on 10-4-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Akhilesh Pandey, Advocate, for (R.P. Singh) Advocate.
For the Respondents : T.C. Ray, Sr. Advocate, Deba Prasad Mukherjee, Advocate.
For the Impleading Party : Ms. Abha Jain, Advocate (NP), A. Sharan, Advocate.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
When the Service Commission or the Board selects the candidates, the normal criteria required of is to prepare of the list of the candidates selected in the order of their merit and then recommend to the Government for appointment to the post advertised for and it is not mandatory for the Government to accept options of the candidates and make appointment to the post.
When the Service Commission or the Board selects the candidates, the normal criteria required of is to prepare of the list of the candidates selected in the order of their merit and then recommend to the Government for appointment to the post advertised for and it is not mandatory for the Government to accept options of the candidates and make appointment to the post.
Subject
Administrative Law - Selection and Appointment of Candidates
Act Referred
Headnote
Service Law-Recruitment-Selection to class III posts in several categories by Bihar State Selection Service Board-No merit list prepared-Selection made on basis of educational qualifications required for job-Whether appointment of candidates is valid in law?-(No)-Recommendations in respect of allotment and appointment of selected candidates is per se illegal-Appointment of selected candidates by pick and choose is an arbitrary exercise of power-Normal criteria required of is to prepare of list of candidates selected in order of merit and then recommend to Government for appointment to the post-It is not mandatory for Government to accept options of candidates and make appointment-Government to prescribe an objective and rational method of manner of allotment.
Held : When the Service Commission or the Board selects the candidates, the normal criteria required of is to prepare of the list of the candidates selected in the order of their merit and then recommends to the Government for appointment to the post advertised for. In that behalf, it is always open to the executive to allot the selected candidates in the particular categories of services in the order of merit prepared and recommended as per the procedure and application of roster and reservation and on the basis thereof appointments be made to the respective Departments. Of course, it would be subject to the fulfilment of the qualifications prescribed for the post. Since the Government has not satisfied us as to have adopted this rationale, the appointment of selected candidates by pick and choose is an arbitrary exercise of the power. Under these circumstances, the arbitrariness is writ large. (Para 4)
Further held : Even if options were called for and given, it is not mandatory for the Government to accept options of the candidates and make appointment to the post. Asking for option of candidates is only a discretionary matter and the Government is not bound to select the candidates on the basis thereof. Under these circumstances, the candidates who applied for, though opted for, have no acquired rights, much less indefeasible and absolute right for selection or appointment to a particular post. As stated earlier, the Government have to prescribe an objective and rational method or manner of allotment of the candidates selected to the Departments, depending upon their job necessity and requirement. Since the objective and rational criteria was not followed, we decline to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. (Para 5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the selection and appointment of candidates without a merit list and without calling for options is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Selection by pick and choose without a merit list is arbitrary, though calling for candidate options is discretionary and creates no indefeasible right to a post. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Public selection requires a merit list and an objective, rational method of allotment; failure to adopt such criteria renders the appointment process arbitrary. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Appeal disposed of; Government directed to follow the established legal principles for pending appointments. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Is the failure to prepare a merit list in public recruitment considered arbitrary?
Yes. The normal criteria for selection by a Service Commission or Board is to prepare a merit list in order of merit and recommend candidates. Selection by pick and choose without such a list is an arbitrary exercise of power. (Para 4 )
7. Is the government legally mandated to call for options from candidates before appointing them to specific posts?
No. Asking for options is a discretionary matter. The government is not bound to select candidates based on options, and candidates have no acquired or indefeasible right to be appointed to a particular post based on their option. (Para 5 )
8. What is the required standard for allotting selected candidates to various departments?
The government must prescribe and follow an objective and rational method or manner of allotment to departments, depending on job necessity and requirements, subject to the fulfillment of prescribed qualifications. (Para 4 , 5 )
ORDER
Impleadment application is dismissed.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Patna High Court, made on February 17, 1986.
3. A few admitted facts are sufficient for disposal of this appeal. Recruitment to the Class III posts in several categories in the State of Bihar was advertised by the Bihar State Selection Service Board. Large number of candidates applied for selection. There were 1005 posts in all; initially, 978 and subsequently 127 posts were included. For 7 categories of posts, special educational qualification of graduation with Commerce, Science, Economics and Mathematics has been prescribed. For 3 categories of posts, only general educational qualifications have been prescribed. All are required to have graduation degree as a minimum educational qualification. Before selection of the candidates, the pay structure of some of the posts underwent drastic change. Some of the posts carrying higher pay scale, prior to the advertisement, were lower grades with lesser scale of pay while some of the posts due to Pay Commission recommendations were increased. Be that as it may, when the selection was made and appointments were sought to be made of the selected candidates, as per the affidavit filed in this regard, on a direction given on July 30, 1987, the Government claimed that "the Board considered candidates for various posts as per availability at the time and recommended candidates strictly on the basis of pay scale, academic qualifications of job requirements." The High Court proceeded on the premise that no merit list was prepared and the candidates who had aptitude for certain job or entitlement are required to be considered for appointment. Options had not been called for. Therefore, the selection and appointment of the candidates without preparing merit list and without calling for the option is arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. The question, therefore, is: whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in law? When we asked the learned counsel for the appellant to place before us the merit list to substantiate the stand taken in the affidavit filed in that behalf, the learned counsel is unable to place before us the merit list except the publication in the newspaper that candidates were selected on the basis of the merit. In view of the finding recorded by the High Court that no merit list was prepared and in spite of the opportunity having been given, the Government failed to substantiate that the merit list was in fact prepared, we find it difficult to accept the averments made in the affidavit. Under these circumstances, we proceed on the premise that the merit list has not been prepared and the selection came to be made on the basis of educational qualifications required for the job and in some Departments on the basis of pay scales available at that time. In this scenario, the question arises: whether appointment of the candidates is valid in law? When the Service Commission or the Board selects the candidates, the normal criteria required of is to prepare of the list of the candidates selected in the order of their merit and then recommends to the Government for appointment to the post advertised for. In that behalf, it is always open to the executive to allot the selected candidates in the particular categories of services in the order of merit prepared and recommended as per the procedure and application of roster and reservation and on the basis thereof appointments be made to the respective Departments. Of course, it would be subject to the fulfilment of the qualifications prescribed for the post. Since the Government has not satisfied us as to have adopted this rationale, the appointment of selected candidates by pick and choose is an arbitrary exercise of the power. Under these circumstances, the arbitrariness is writ large.
5. Accordingly, the recommendations in respect of the allotment and appointment of selected candida
