1. Selection process for single vacancy completed—appointee resigned—next candidate sought permanent appointment. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 57
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ruma Pal : S.R.Babu
Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited
Versus
Delson Davis
Case No. : 7567 of 1999
Once a selection process concludes and appointment is made, any subsequent vacancy arising from the appointee leaving the post is treated as a fresh vacancy requiring new recruitment procedures; temporary employment does not create a right to permanent appointment.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Selection Process - Vacancy - Once the selection process is complete and appointment has been made, that process comes to an end. If any vacancy arises on the appointee having joined the post leaving the same, it must be treated as a fresh vacancy and fresh steps in accordance with the appropriate rules should be taken. (Para 3)
(B) Temporary appointment - Any temporary arrangement made during the interregnum will not entitle a candidate to claim permanent employment. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Applications were invited for a single vacancy of data entry officer. The first rank holder was appointed but later resigned from service. The second rank holder, who had been appointed temporarily in that vacancy, approached the court below seeking a direction for permanent appointment. The court below held that as the previous incumbent had left and a vacancy was available, the candidate had a right to be considered for appointment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the reasoning of the court below was incorrect. It held that the completion of the selection process and subsequent appointment marks the end of that process.
Issues: Whether a vacancy created by the resignation of an appointee after the completion of the selection process constitutes a fresh vacancy requiring new recruitment steps, or if a lower-ranked candidate has a right to permanent appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that when a selection process is complete and appointments are made, any vacancy arising from an appointee leaving the post must be treated as a fresh vacancy. Consequently, fresh steps must be taken in accordance with appropriate rules, and temporary arrangements do not entitle a person to claim permanent employment.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant: vacancy after appointee's resignation is fresh. Respondent: entitled to be appointed to that vacancy. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Once selection process ends and appointment made, any later vacancy is fresh; temporary arrangement confers no right. (Para 3 )
4. Vacancy arising after appointee resigns is a fresh vacancy requiring fresh selection; no right to claim permanent employment. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside, writ petition dismissed. (Para 3 )
6. Does a candidate on a select list have a right to be appointed when the selected appointee later resigns?
No. Once selection is complete and appointment made, that process ends. A later vacancy is fresh and requires fresh selection steps. (Para 3 )
7. Does a temporary arrangement made during the interregnum entitle a person to claim permanent employment?
No. A temporary arrangement made pending fresh selection does not create any right to permanent employment. (Para 3 )
(1) THE appellant bank invited applications for the post of clerk-cum-cashier, data entry officer and peons vide notification published in the Express Daily dated 10.11.1994. So far as vacancy for the post of data entry officer is concerned, it is only one.
(2) ON completion of the selection process, the respondent no. 1 was included in the list as having secured second rank while one Mr. T.D. Roily stood first. Mr. Roily joined the service and he was appointed as data entry officer. After some time, he resigned from service as he got better placement in some other institution. The respondent no. 1, it appears, approached the bank and requested to appoint him in that vacancy. Though he was appointed temporarily, he was not given permanent employment. Under those circumstances, the respondent no. 1 approached the High Court for a direction that he should be appointed on permanent basis. The High Court examined the matter and found that when the previous incumbent, who had been selected, had left the post and vacancy being available, the appropriate course was to have appointed the respondent no. 1 and he had a right to be considered for the appointment.
(3) WE fail to understand the reasoning of the High Court in this regard. When once the selection process is complete and appointment had been made, that process comes to an end and if any vacancy arises on the appointee having joined the post leaves the same, it must be treated as a fresh vacancy and fresh steps in accordance with the appropriate rules should be taken. This view is fortified by the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Raghubir Chand Sharma & Anr. [JT 2001 (9) SC 266]. Any temporary arrangement made during the interregnum will not entitle respondent no. 1 to claim for permanent employment. In that view of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1.
