SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(MP) 538

High Court of Madhya Pradesh
G.S.Ahluwalia, J.
SURAJ SINGH DHAKAD – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
W. P. No. 18516 of 2022
Decided On : 25-08-2022

Selected candidates do not have an indefeasible right to be appointed, and executive instructions cannot override statutory rules.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Lab Technician - Rules, 2013 - 12, 14 - The court held that the petitioner, despite being placed first in the waiting list, did not have a right to seek mandamus for the preparation of a waiting list. The court cited various Supreme Court cases to establish that selected candidates do not have an indefeasible right to be appointed and that the state is not bound to fill all vacancies. The court also emphasized that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules and that there was no statutory provision for the preparation of a waiting list. The petition was dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to consider his case for the post of Lab Technician and to prepare a waiting list as per the provisions of Rules, 2013. The petitioner was placed first in the waiting list and argued that the failure to prepare a waiting list was a mistake on the part of the employer, causing potential candidates to suffer.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner did not have a right to seek mandamus for the preparation of a waiting list and cited various Supreme Court cases to support the finding. The court also emphasized that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules and that there was no statutory provision for the preparation of a waiting list. The petition was dismissed.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had a right to seek mandamus for the preparation of a waiting list for the post of Lab Technician.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that selected candidates do not have an indefeasible right to be appointed and that the state is not bound to fill all vacancies. The court also emphasized that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules and that there was no statutory provision for the preparation of a waiting list.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.

ORDER : – This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs : –

    “i. A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for the post of Lab Technician (Contractual Employee). ii. An appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner whose name is at S. No. 01 in the waiting list. iii. An appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to take decision on the representation Annexure P-13, Annexure P-14 and Annexure P-15 submitted by the petitioner. Any other relief which this Hon’ble High Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

    2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents issued an advertisement for the post of Lab Technician. Total 279 posts were advertised for direct recruitment on regular basis and 68 posts were advertised for appointment on contractual basis and in all 347 posts of Lab Technician were advertised in the year 2020. The selection was to be made on the basis of marks obtained in the examination. The petitioner also applied for the post of Lab Technician. The petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 in the list of contractual employees. It is submitted that as per the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Kanishth Sewa (Sanyukt Arhata) Pariksha Niyam, 2013, (in short “Rules, 2013”) a waiting list is required to be prepared and appointment was to be made from the persons in the waiting list, in case if the selected candidate does not join on the post. The petitioner moved an application under the Right to Information Act through his friend. It was informed in reply to the said RTI application that in Rewa Division out of 9 persons from contractual employees category, only 5 persons have been appointed and 4 employees have not joined, therefore, posts are vacant in Rewa Division. Even in Indore Division also 5 posts are vacant. The waiting list as required under Rule 13 of Rules, 2013 has not been prepared and, therefore, an application under the Right to Information Act was moved through his nephew, in which it was replied by the respondents that the process for finalization of waiting list is still in progress. Since no waiting list has been prepared so far in spite of repeated representations, accordingly, this petition has been filed. It is submitted that due to the mistake on the part of the employer, a prospective and potential candidate cannot be allowed to suffer.

    3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

    4. According to the advertisement, the last date for submitting the application form was 29-10-2020. The life of waiting list is one year. The result was declared and the successful candidates were directed to join by order dated 21-5-2021. Thus, it is clear that more than one year has expired from the date of declaration of result. The counsel for the petitioner could not point out any right under which he can seek mandamus for the respondents to prepare a waiting list. It is well established principle of law that even a selected candidate does not have any right to seek mandamus for issuance of appointment order. The Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory of Chandigarh vs. Dilbagh Singh, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 154 has held as under :

      12. If we have regard to the above enunciation that a candidate who finds a place in the select list as a candidate selected for appointment to a civil post, does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific rule entitling him for such appointment and he could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the Administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a necessary concomitant that such candidate even if has a legitimate expectation of being appointed in such posts due to his name finding a place in the sel

                                                      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                                      1
                                                      2
                                                      3
                                                      4
                                                      5
                                                      6
                                                      7
                                                      8
                                                      9
                                                      10
                                                      11
                                                      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                                      supreme today icon
                                                      logo-black

                                                      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

                                                      qr

                                                      Scan Me!

                                                      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                                      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                                      whatsapp-icon Back to top