Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA/22907/2007 4/ 4 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 22907 of 2007 [ENTITY] - Petitioner(s) Versus [ENTITY] & 4 - Respondent(s) Appearance : MR [ENTITY] for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR [ENTITY], ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. None for Respondent(s) : 3 - 5. CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 01/09/2008 ORAL ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the prayer, inter alia, that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the respondents to review and consider the case of the petitioner for giving suitable appointment to the post of Vidhya Sahayak-ATD category as per the advertisement dated 17.4.2007.
2. It is contended that the petitioner had applied pursuant to the advertisement given by the respondents in April, 2007 and the petitioner is in the waiting list at Sl. No. 9. It is also stated that only 28 candidates have been called for interview and the candidates like the petitioner who have been celled for interview and whose name appear in the waiting list, are not included in the merit list and it is operated further for the purpose of giving the appointment.
3. The petitioner had also, therefore, filed earlier [CASE NUMBER] and this Court, vide order dated 17.7.2007 at Annexure-D, passed an order directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and also gave further direction as reflected on p. 3 para 2 as to how to operate the waiting list, up to what occasion it will be operated and the legitimate expectation of the petitioner and further directions have also been given.
Learned advocate Mr. [ENTITY] for learned advocate Mr. [ENTITY] for the petitioner has also referred to the order in another [CASE NUMBER] dated 8.8.2007 and the observations made therein stating that the case of the petitioner is identical and, therefore, similarly order may be passed directing to consider the case of the petitioner.
4. Though the submissions have been made, admittedly, the petitioner was called for interview and has been put on the waiting list. However, the learned advocate has not been able to point out anything as to on what basis the petitioner can claim the appointment. It is well-settled that merely because the petitioner is selected or is in the waiting list does not mean that he has any right to claim the appointment.
5. The observations made by this court in the order passed in [CASE NUMBER] dated 17.7.2007 referring to operation of the waiting list and also the legitimate expectation, etc. are required to be considered in light of the judgment of this Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] where this court, relying upon the [ACT]al Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], has observed, ?SIt becomes clear that even constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India has now taken the view that a successful candidate whose name is included in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed. Notification of vacancies simply is an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on inclusion of their names in the select list they do not acquire any right to the post. There is no legal duty on the State to fill up the post. It is for the State to take a decision as to whether it wants to full up all vacancies or not.
6. The aforesaid principle was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT].
7. Therefore, when even the persons who are selected in the select list cannot claim any right as a matter of fact, the waiting list which is prepared for being utilized for administrative convenience does not confer any right.
8. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in the case of [PRECEDENT] observed that merely because the person is selected, it does not confer any right to be appointed.
9. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in the case of [PRECEDENT] has observed, ?SThe rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed and the court/tribunal cannot direct regularisation of temporary appointees dehors the rules, nor can it direct continuation of service of a temporary employee (whether called a casual, ad hoc or daily-rated employee) or payment of regular salaries to them. Orders for creation of posts, appointment on these posts, regularisation, fixing pay scales, continuation in service, promotions, etc. are all executive or legislative functions, and it is highly improper for judges to step into this sphere, except in a rare and exceptional case. The courts must exercise judicial restraint in this connection, and not encroach into the executive or legislative domain Jobs cannot be created by judicial orders, nor even by legislative or executive decisions No doubt, [SECTION] provides for the right to work, but this has been deliberately kept by the Founding Fathers of our [ACT] in the directive principles and hence made unenforceable in view of [SECTION], because the Founding Fathers in their wisdom realised that while it was their wish everyone should be given employment, but the ground realities of our country cannot be overlooked. [SECTION] of the [ACT] cannot be stretched so far as to mean that everyone must be given a job. The number of available jobs are limited, and hence courts must take a realistic view of the matter and must exercise self-restraint.
9. Therefore, in light of this clear position of law, there is no substance in the petition and it deserves to be dismissed in limine.
The petition is dismissed in limine.
([ENTITY], J.) (hn)