A person in the select list does not have any legal right to be appointed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Tapas Das, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) appearing for the respondents.

2. The writ petitioner herein is presently serving as “Supervisor Store” under the Border Road Organization (BRO). Aggrieved by his non-selection/non-appointment in the post of “Supervisor Store” pursuant to the advertisement notice No. 01/2013, the instant writ petition has been filed, seeking a Writ of Mandamus.

3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that in the year 2013, the Border Roads Development Board, BRO, General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) had issued advertisement notice No. 01/2013 inviting applications inter alia for filling up one post of “Supervisor Store”. The post was reserved for Schedule Tribe (ST) candidate. The writ petitioner belongs to ST Category. It appears that, in response to the aforesaid advertisement notice, as many as 5 (five) candidates, including the writ petitioner, had submitted their applications. On conclusion of the selection process, a list of provisionally selected candidate was published by the authorities wherein, the name of one ‘Kishore Aktar’ figured. The names of the petitioner and one Makhan Lal Meena were shown as wait listed candidates at Sl. No. 1 & 2 respectively of the waiting list.

4. When the process of appointment of Kishore Aktar was in progress, the candidate was subjected to medical test, which he had failed to clear. As such, no order of appointment was issued in his favour. In the meantime, certain developments took place which had necessitated change in the holding strength of ‘Supervisor Store’ in the department and, therefore, a decision was taken not to fill up the post of ‘Supervisor Store’ by direct recruitment but to include the said post in the DPC category i.e. to be filled up by way of promotion. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the authorities to issue appointment letter to him for the post of ‘Supervisor Store’ on the basis of his status as a selected candidate.

5. The respondents have contested the case of the petitioner by filing counter affidavit wherein, it has been inter alia mentioned that the projects in respect of which Store Supervisor’s posts was in existence had been surrendered/handed over to the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and State PWD, as a result of which, the projects were kept under suspended animation. Hence, there was no necessity for filling up the post of Store Supervisor at the relevant point of time.

6. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for both the sides have appraised this Court that by the notification dated 20/06/2023, the petitioner had been promoted as Supervisor Store with effect from 07/12/2022. Mr. Das, however, submits that although the petitioner had subsequently been promoted, yet, his seniority in the rank of ‘Supervisor Store’ ought to be reckoned with effect from the year 2013 when the advertised post of ‘Supervisor Store’ had fallen vacant since the petitioner had a legitimate right to be appointed in the said post after the selected candidate had failed to clear the medical test. In support of his above arguments, Mr. Das has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Director, SCTI for Medical Science & Technology and another Vs. M. Pushkaran reported in (2008) 1 SCC 448.

7. Mr. Das has further argued that employees of BRO, such as the petitioner, are required to discharge their duties and function in extremely hostile conditions and, therefore, a lenient approach be adopted by this Court in this matter so as to grant adequate relief to the petitioner.

8. Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned CGC, on the other hand, has argued that once the petitioner has been promoted as ‘Supervisor Store’, the writ petition has become infructuous. The learned CGC has fu