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

2023 Supreme(MP) 649

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Shubham Patel & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 24090 of 2019
Decided On : 26-10-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Shri Chaudhary Mayank Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Naveen Dubey, Government Advocate, for the State.

Selected candidates do not have a vested right to claim appointment, and the state has the authority to fill vacancies based on valid reasons.

Headnote:

APPOINTMENT - Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India - 12.12.2018 - Group-IV Combined Recruitment Examination, 2018 - Professional Examination Board - Assistant Grade-III - Steno Typist - 12.12.2019 - Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs. Dilbagh Singh and Others (1993) 1 SCC 154, Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47, State of U.P. And Others Vs. Rajkumar Sharma And Others (2006) 3 SCC 330, S.S. Balu And Another Vs. State of Kerala And Others (2009) 2 SCC 479 - The court discussed the right of a selected candidate to claim appointment, the authority of the state to fill vacancies, and the validity of merit lists.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought appointment orders after being selected in the Group-IV Combined Recruitment Examination, 2018, but the orders were not issued within the validity period of the merit list. They also sought quashment of the order cancelling the merit list.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the selected candidates had no vested right to claim appointment, and the respondents had valid reasons for not issuing appointment orders and for cancelling the selection process.

Issues: The right of a selected candidate to claim appointment, the authority of the state to fill vacancies, and the validity of merit lists.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that selected candidates do not have a vested right to claim appointment, and the state has the authority to fill vacancies based on valid reasons. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to reservation rules and policies.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as no vested right to seek appointment was established.

ORDER

1. This Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:

    1. That, this Honble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent no.3 to issue the appointment order of the petitioners as soon as possible.

    2. That, this Honble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to compassionate the petitioners which has been occurred due to negligency of the respondents.

    3. Any other relief which this Honble Court may deem fit and may also be granted.

    4. "Amended by court order dated 29.08.2020." That, this Honble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the letter date 11.11.2019 in relation to cancellation of merit list of petitioners which has been issued by respondent no.3.

    2. It is the case of petitioners that they appeared in examination of Group-IV Combined Recruitment Examination, 2018 conducted by Professional Examination Board and on 12.12.2018 some candidates were selected to the post of Assistant Grade-III and some were selected for Steno Typist in the department of Chief Electoral Officer. It is submitted that respondent No.3 is under obligation to issue appointment orders of petitioners within three months of their selection as per procedure of recruitment but they have not issued the same till today, whereas validity of merit list is up to 12.12.2019. Thus, it is the case of petitioners that although they have been selected but their orders of appointment have not been issued. Thereafter, during pendency of writ petition, the petition was amended and an additional relief was claimed thereby seeking quashment of order dated 11.11.2019 by which merit list was cancelled.

    3. The moot question for consideration is as to whether a selected candidate has a right to claim appointment or not?

    4. The question is no more res integra.

    5. The Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs. Dilbagh Singh and Others 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 nonappointment 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 select list of candidates, cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily. In the instant case, when the Chandigarh Administration which received the complaints about the unfair and injudicious manner in which select list of candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU was prepared by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose, found those complaints to be well founded on an enquiry got made in that regard, we are unable to find that the Chandigarh Administration had acted either arbitrarily or without bona fide and valid reasons in cancelling such dubious select list. Hence, the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents as to the sustainability of the judgment of CAT under appeal on the ground of non-affording of an opportunity of hearing to the respondents (candidates in the select list) is a misconceived one and is consequently rejected."

      6. The Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 has held as under:

        "7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection

                      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