Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSAL
Avichal Tomar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility and vacancy status in cisf recruitment (Para 4) |
| 2. court's authority over governmental recruitment policies (Para 5 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. arguments regarding right to appointment and age limit (Para 7 , 8 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. conclusion on the lack of merit in the petitions (Para 18) |
| 5. dismissal of the petitions with a recommendation (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. On 27th May, 2021, when these petitions came up before us for admission, inter alia the following order was passed:
"3. The petitioner in both of these petitions was a candidate in the examination notified on 3rd March, 2018 for recruitment of Sub Inspectors in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and for recruitment of Assistant Sub Inspectors in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). These petitions have been filed, seeking a direction to the respondents CISF to "grant the vacancies for the post of Sub Inspectors in Central Industrial Security Force" against the vacancies of the year 2018, under the applicable Recruitment Rules".
4. It is the case of the petitioners, that (i) in the Notification dated 3rd March, 2018, though the tentative vacan
The State is not legally obligated to fill vacant posts if it deems unnecessary, even in the presence of qualified candidates; vacancies do not create rights to appointments.
The court emphasized that the mere existence of vacancies does not create an obligation to fill them, and the government's decision not to fill vacancies was a policy decision.
Administrative decisions affecting promotions must adhere to principles of natural justice; promotion cannot be revoked without a hearing, reaffirming employees' rights post-appointment.
The cancellation of appointments made against the relevant rules and on the posts which are not sanctioned, cannot be permitted to hold the field. The court emphasized the importance of following the....
Appointment discrepancies based on merit require adherence to statutory rules, and procedural delays must not harm candidates' rights to seniority and benefits.
In the absence of specific provision for a waiting list, candidates cannot claim appointment on vacancies left unfilled due to non-joining of selected candidates.
Errors in procedural guidelines do not penalize a candidate if clarifications regarding eligibility and application procedures are inadequately communicated.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
