2004 Supreme(SC) 241

2004(3) Supreme 685
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., S.H. Kapadia, J.
Bihar State Electricity Board -Appellant
versus
Suresh Prasad and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6084 of 1998
Decided on 25-2-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Pramod Swarup, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Sujit K. Singh, S.B. Upadhyay, Praveen Swarup, Irshad Ahmad, Gopal Prasad, S.K. Singh, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
If number of vacancies are notified for appointment and even if adequate number of candidates are found fit the successful candidates do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against existing vacancies.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Filling up of vacancies -Whether High Court was justified in giving direction to appellant to fill up the vacancies which remain unfulfilled due to candidates not turning up to join the post? No-Posts of operators-List of 22 candidates selected on basis of written examination and interview prepared and as per direction of High Court in a writ petition to fill up 25 posts, appellant Board notified selection of 22 candidates-Respondents 1 to 7 who had also qualified in written test and oral interview and were on merit list at serial No. 23 and down words were not given the post despite only 4 joined out of list of 22 candidates and 18 vacancies remained unfulfilled as candidates did not turn up-No statutory rule which required appellant Board to prepare waiting list in addition to the panel-Impugned order of High Court directing appellant Board to fill up vacant posts was liable to be set aside.

       Held : In the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (supra) it has been held by this Court that even if number of vacancies are notified for appointment and even if adequate number of candidates are found fit the successful candidates do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against existing vacancies. That ordinarily such 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. It was further held that the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies unless the relevant recruitment rules indicate. In the present case we are not shown any such relevant recruitment rules. Moreover, there is no merit in the contention advanced on behalf of respondents No.1 to 7 that the appellant had violated the order of High Court dated 23rd March, 1994 by preparing a list of only 22 candidates instead of filling up 50% of the alleged 161 vacancies. In this connection, the impugned judgment of the High Court has recorded a finding of fact that the Board has rightly reduced the number of vacancies to 50 and to that extent claim of the writ petitioners was rejected. In the impugned judgment, the High Court found that 50 vacancies were required to be filled up, 25% against the advertisement dated 15th December, 1986 and 25% against advertisement dated 25.11.1992. However, according to the impugned judgment, the appellant ought to have made appointments by preparing a further panel for 18 vacant posts which became vacant when the earlier 18 selected candidates opted out. It is this part of the reasoning of the High Court, which is fallacious. In the present case pursuant to the direction of the High Court dated 23.3.1994, the appellant took steps for filling up 25 vacancies in the post of Operators from advertisement No. 3/86 and the remaining 25 vacancies from advertisement No. 6/92. The results were notified on 29.4.1994 on the notice board. The Board recommended names of successful candidates under advertisement No. 3/86 and advertisement No. 6/92. Out of 22 candidates selected by the Board for appointment under advertisement No. 3/86 18 candidates did not turn up. At this stage it is important to note that respondent Nos. 1 to 7 had applied for appointment under advertisement No. 3/86 dated 15.12.1986 and they had qualified but they were placed at serial No. 23 onwards in the descending order. As stated above a panel of 22 candidates was prepared for appointment under advertisement No. 3/86 and respondent Nos. 1 to 7 fell beyond cut off number. We are not shown any statutory recruitment rules which require the Appellant-Board to prepare a waiting list in addition to the panel. The argument advanced on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 was in effect that when 18 candidates failed to turn up the appellant was bound to offer posts to candidates in the waiting list. No such rule has been shown to us in this regard. In our view, the judgment of this Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (supra) squarely applies to the facts of this case. (Paras 6 and 7)