IMPORTANT POINT
The claim of the appellants that the rank list prepared in 1995 should have been operative for 3 years is not sustainable in the circumstances of the case. It has been cancelled after two years for justifiable reasons and appellants cannot claim regular appointments on the basis of Piara Singh (1992) 4 SCC 118 which is misplaced being distinguishable on facts.

Headnote:(i) Service Jurisprudence-Judicial precedent-Panel of persons selected for a post-Right to be appointed-Principle and restrictions on it.
       Held : The principle that persons merely selected for a post do not thereby acquire a right to be appointed to such post is well established by judicial precedent. Even if vacancies exist, it is open to the concerned authority to decide how many appointment should be made. However the selected candidates have right to compel such authority (i) not to make appointments by travelling outside the list and (ii) to make the selection for appointment strictly in the order the candidates have been placed in the list. This Court has placed two further restrictions on the exercise of power by the appointing authority, namely that the appointments to the vacancies must be made in accordance with the Rules, if any, relating to reservations and also that the appointing authority cannot scrap the panel of selected candidates during the period of its validity, except for well founded reasons. (Para 12)
       (ii) Pre Degree Course (Abolition) Ordinance, 1997 and Act, 1997-Cancellation of rank list prepared in October, 1995 by University of Calicut for the post of Assistant Grade II after two years-Claim of appellants that it should have been operative for 3 years as per resolution of the Syndicate of the University on 10th May 1986-Cancellation of 1995 list by resolution passed on 26.11.1997 after two years-Can it do so? (Yes, for justifiable reasons)-Reasons for cancellation being Territorial division of Calicut University to another Kannur University-Abolition of pre-degree courses-Statutory ban on future appointments by an ordinance and later Act of 1997 allegations of corruption in the preparation of list-Whether justifiable to cancel the rank list of 1995? (Yes).
       Held : There was a statutory ban, with a limited relaxation allowing provisional appointment on the one hand and the administrative and financial consequences of the creation of Kannur University on the other. The appellants have not also been able to establish that there were any permanent vacancies which existed during that period which could have been filled by the University in accordance with law. In the light of all these circumstances, the reason for cancellation of the bank List given by the respondents cannot be termed to be arbitrary or unjust. (Para 21)
       (iii) Cancellation of rank list prepared in 1995 in 1997-Writ petitions -Dismissed-Appeal to DB-Dismissed-Appeal to S.C.-Leave granted on 4.9.2000-Status quo was directed to continue until further order-Statutory ban on future appointments coming to an end in 2000-The period of validity of 1995 list even according to appellants claiming at 3 years, has long being expired-Alternate submission to hold the appointments by claiming regularisation on the ground that they had been serving the University albeit on a daily wages basis pursuant to the orders of Court-Whether sustainable? (No) Patra Singh Case (1992) 4 SCC 118 (Dist.)-Appeal dismissed.
       Held : The facts of this case are totally at variance with those in Piara Singh. In this case there was a complete statutory ban on appointments by the University from 1997 till 2000. The appellants were appointed provisionally only pursuant to orders of Court purely by way of interim relief because of the then existing need of the University. There is no scheme for regularisation formulated by the University. Besides regularisation in the appointment of the appellants would mean appointment contrary to the order of merit in the Rank List. There is also nothing to show that such regularisation would be in keeping with the reservation rules. The appellants cannot stand in the way of the candidates who successfully competed in the 2001 selections for the post of Assistants. The alternative prayer of the appellants is, therefore, unsustainable. For all these reasons the appeals are dismissed and the interim order vacated without any order as to costs. (Paras 25 & 26)

JUDGMENT

Ruma Pal, J.-The appellants in the several appeals, seek to assail the cancellation of a rank list prepared for the post of Assistant Grade-II by the University of Calicut, the respondent No. 1 before us. The appellants had been selected pursuant to a notification issued on 1st November 1991 inviting applications for preparation of a panel for appointment as Assistants Grade-II in the University. The selection was made after a written test and interviews and a rank list was prepared on 25th October, 1995. The appellants claim is that the rank list should have been operative for a period of three years and that the respondents were bound to appoint them to vacancies which had arisen within that period.

2. The appellants in CA 4906/2000 challenged the action of the University in curtailing the period of the validity of the rank list to two years before the High Court of Kerala by filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on 7th January, 1998 by noting the submission of the University that:

"as and when necessity arises for employing more persons, the University is prepared to make appointments from Ext. P1 rank list. But it is made clear that such appointees will not have any claim either for future appointment or for regular appointment. It is purely a stop-gap arrangement pending regular recruitment to the post".

3. These appellants challenged the order of the Single Judge by filing an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The other appellants before us filed Original Petitions also assailing the action of the University.

4. The University filed an application in the pending proceedings for permission to engage 40 to 50 assistants on a provisional basis for three months to meet the exigencies of work arising in connection with the annual examination. By an order dated 18th March, 1999 the Division Bench granted the University:

"permission to engage purely on daily wages basis 40 to 50 Assistants on work need basis. Petitioners in OP 8743/98 and 22212/97 and the appellants in WA 520/98 will be sent notices and if they respond to the said notice they may also be considered for appointment among the 50 persons on daily wages basis".

5. Pursuant to this order, the appellants were served notices by the University and were appointed on daily wage basis.

6. The Division Bench disposed of the appeal and the Original Petitions by a common judgment on 6th April, 2000. The Division Bench was of the view that the issue had become academic but at the same time directed that:

"when the next process of selection starts, it would be appropriate if they (the appellants, are given some credit for the services rendered by them and also making relaxation so far as their ages are concerned in case they have become over-aged in the meantime. It goes without saying that they have the right to appear at the requisite test and interview so that the question of giving credit for the services rendered by them and relaxation of age can be considered by the University."

7. Not being satisfied, the appellants impugned the decision of the High Court before this Court by way of separate special leave petitions. Leave was granted by this Court on 4th September, 2000 and the status quo was directed to continue until further orders.

8. In support of their case, the appellants have relied on a resolution said to have been taken on 10th May, 1986 by the Syndicate fixing the validity of rank lists for all future selections at three years. Therefore, according to the appellants, all vacancies in the post of Assistant Grade II till 1998 should have been filled up by the respondents. The appellants claim that had the rank list continued for a period of three years at least 209 vacancies could have been filled by appointment of those whose names were in the 1995 Rank list. They have relied upon a letter dated 18th November, 1997 written by the Controller of Examinations to the Registrar of the University intimating

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 567

Cases Referred (1)