Back
2000 Supreme(Del) 627
High Court Of Delhi
NEHRU YUVA KENDRA SANGATHAN - Appellant
Versus
YOGENDRA SINGH - Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal 209 of 1999
Decided On : 08/02/2000
Bharat Singh, D.D.THAKUR, RAJIV NAYAR, Rakesh Kumar, RANA RANJEET SINGH
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to cancel the selection process can be permissible if there are circumstances questioning the fairness of the selection procedure. It also emphasized that candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right of appointment as a Government servant even if their name appears in the merit list, and the decision not to fill up vacancies must be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.
Headnote:
Selection Process - Recruitment - Cancellation of Selection Process - Fairness in Selection Process - Validity of Decision Not to Fill Posts - [Youth Co-ordinator Recruitment] - [Pritpal Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors., State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and Ors., Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana and Ors., Jitendra Kumar and Ors v. State of Punjab and Ors., Shankarsan Dash v. UO1] - The court discussed the fairness in the selection process and the validity of the decision not to fill the posts. It highlighted the principle that if there are circumstances and material putting a question mark on the fairness of the selection procedure, it is permissible for the authorities to cancel the selection process. The court also emphasized that even if a candidate's name appears in the merit list, they do not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment as a Government servant if a vacancy exists. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant issued an advertisement for recruitment to the posts of Youth Co-ordinator. The respondents applied for the post, and after the written test and interview, the results were not declared. The respondents filed writ petitions seeking direction to declare the results and appoint them. The appellant cited irregularities and complaints in the selection process as reasons for canceling the selection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge did not consider the contentions raised by the appellant in the counter-affidavit and did not provide reasons for the conclusion in the impugned judgment. The court held that the decision to cancel the examination by the appellant needed to be considered and a final view taken based on relevant factors.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the decision not to fill the posts and the fairness in the selection process. The court also addressed the lack of consideration of relevant factors and the absence of reasons in the impugned judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the decision to cancel the selection process can be permissible if there are circumstances questioning the fairness of the selection procedure. It also highlighted that candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right of appointment as a Government servant even if their name appears in the merit list, and the decision not to fill up vacancies must be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration and decision after taking into account all relevant factors. The respondents were granted liberty to make an appropriate request for expeditious decision.
( 1 ) RULE D. B. Since short point is involved the matter is taken up at this stage for final argument and disposal. These three appeals arise from a common judgment of a learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petitions being CWP No. 5289/98 and CWP No. 938/99 which were filed by the respondents in these appeals. By the impugned judgment dated 3/03/1999 the learned single Judge while allowing the writ petitions directed the appellant herein to appoint those who were successful in the examination. All these appeals are disposed of by this judgment.
( 2 ) THE advertisement was issued by the appellant Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan on ; 26/12/1996 for recruitment to the posts of Youth Co-ordinator. Respondents herein applied for the said post. Written test was held followed by interview on 7/11/1997. However, since the results were not declared, respondents herein filed the aforesaid writ petitions with the prayer that direction be issued to the appellants herein to declare the results of selection held on 7/11/1997. The appellant filed the counter-affidavit in which it was, inter alia, stated that in the process of recruitment to the posts of Youth Co-ordinator some irregularities had been found. It was also pointed out that there was no approval/sanction from the Ministry of Finance and no posts were created, the procedure adopted for scrutiny of applications received was not proper inasmuch as in the advertisement educational qualification was fixed as Graduate but only post graduates applicants were called for and that a number of complaints had been received in regard to the appointments on these posts. Resultantly, the decision was taken to cancel the selection process and it was for this reason that results of the interview held on 7/11/1997 were not declared. The learned Single Judge by impugned judgment allowed the writ petitions and gave the mandate to declare the results and appoint the petitioners herein if they were found successful. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:
"the respondents shall declare result of the examination held on 7/11/1997 and if the petitioners are found successful they shall be appointed. The attitude of respondents 1 and 2 is quite contrary to the ethos of Constitution of India. It is perverse and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India".
( 3 ) MR. Rajiv Nayyar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in LPAs 190/ 99 and 206/99 and Mr. Maninder Singh appearing for appellant in LPA No. 209/99 assailed the order of the learned Single Judge primarily on the ground that the learned Single Judge has not dealt with any of the contentions raised by the appellant in the counter-affidavit and argued before the learned Single Judge. It was contended that there was no indefeasible right of the respondents to get appointed to the post applied for even if their names appear in the select list. It was further argued that there were valid reasons for cancelling the selection inasmuch as Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development under whose administrative control Nehru Yuva Kendra comes, had not approved/sanctioned the post and as it was found that there were number of irregularities and complaints in regard to the appointment, it was within the rights of the appellant to cancel the selection. On the other hand Mr. D. D. Thakur, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the cancellation was actuated by malafides and the reasons given in the counter-affidavit or in the decision dated 22/6/1998 deciding to cancel the selection process were neither factually correct nor legally tenable.
( 4 ) LAW on the subject now stands crystalised by various judgments. If there are circumstances and material on record putting question mark on the fairness of selection procedure being adopted, it is permissible for the authorities to cancel the selection process. One, may usefully quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of
