Source: https://www.lawweb.in/2018/04/whether-person-is-entitled-to-get.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 13:48:29+00:00

Document:
Law Web: Whether a person is entitled to get appointment if his name is in select list?
Whether a person is entitled to get appointment if his name is in select list?
“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 they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted”.
Corporation challenging that decision but they could not succeed.
They have now come up in appeal.
and 8 in Ext.P2 rank list.
posting of the appellants thus made was purely temporary.
also the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.
vacancies that arose during the period of validity of the rank list.
were then in existence and not according to the new regulations.
was being made only from the ministerial staff in the Corporation.
list published as Ext.P2 are valid.
12. The names of the appellants are included as serial Nos.
force, three vacancies had arisen in the post of Legal Assistant.
that post cannot be accepted.
16. The principle that persons merely selected for a post do not thereby acquire a right to be appointed to such post is well established by judicial precedents. Even if vacancies exist, it is open to the concerned authority to decide how many appointments should be made. A decision on the part of an authority to fill up the existing vacancies or not is within its domain. In the absence of discrimination or arbitrariness, a writ court ordinarily would not interfere in such matters (See Deepa Keyes v. Kerala State Electricity Board and another: (2007) 6 SCC 194). The process for selection for the purpose of recruitment against anticipated vacancies does not create a right to be appointed to the post which can be enforced by a mandamus (See Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab : AIR 1984 SC 1850). A candidate who finds a place in the select list for appointment to a civil post does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed to such post in the absence of any specific rule entitling him for such appointment. He could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons (Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh : AIR 1993 SC 796). A person who is selected, does not, on account of being empanelled alone, acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment is at the best a condition of eligibility for purposes of appointment. By itself, it does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed unless relevant service rules provide to the contrary (State of Bihar v. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union : AIR 1994 SC 736). Mere entry in the select list of the name of a candidate does not give him the right to be appointed. It may happen that the authority concerned may not fill up any vacancies. In such a case, a candidate, even if he is the first in the list, will not have a right to be appointed. Existence of vacancies does not give a legal right to a candidate to be selected for appointment. The examination is for the purpose of showing that a particular candidate is eligible for consideration. The selection for appointment comes later. It is open then to the authority concerned to decide how many appointments shall be made. The mere fact that a candidate's name appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed (State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha: AIR 1973 SC 2216). Select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments so that vacancies could be filled up taking the names from that list as and when it is so required.
17. Therefore, merely for the reason that the names of the appellants were included in Ext.P2 rank list, they have got no right to get appointment to the post of Legal Assistant.
18. Ext.P1 notification does not state the period of validity of the select list that would be prepared. Ext.P2 rank list does not mention the period of its validity. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the rank list shall remain alive till all the persons included in it are appointed.
19. True, Ext.P1 notification does not state the period of validity of the select list that would be prepared. True, Ext.P2 rank list does not mention its period of validity. Learned standing counsel for the Corporation has also not pointed out any rule or provision which prescribes the period of validity of Ext.P2 rank list. But, a select list cannot remain in force forever. There shall be a time limit. There has to be a time limit. The object of selection is to find out the best talent for the service. If the period of the select list is not limited, it would remain in force for indefinite length of time, may be for several years. Then other persons who become eligible during the period would be deprived of their right to compete and to get appointment. The employer would also be denied opportunity to select the best talent available.
Therefore, the action of the Corporation limiting the period of validity of Ext.P2 rank list for a period of three years from the date of its publication in parity with the period of validity of the rank lists prepared and published by the Kerala Public Service Commission, cannot be found fault with. Such action on the part of the Corporation cannot be found to be arbitrary or malafide. Authority for this proposition can be had from the decision of this Court inNeelakanda Kurup v. State of Kerala (MANU/KE/0537/1996).
20. In Mohanan v. State of Kerala : AIR 1997 SC 1896, it has been held that a long waiting list cannot be kept in infinitum in view of the principle "infinitum in jure reprobatur" (that which is infinite or endless is reprehensible in law). In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that at the time of Ext.P1 notification and on the date of publication of Ext.P2 rank list, there were only four vacancies of Legal Assistants. Though the total number of vacancies to be filled up was not specified in Ext.P1 notification, the four vacancies which existed at the time of the selection notification were filled up from that list. The list cannot be treated as valid forever. The list should not have been allowed to remain in force beyond a reasonable period. Hence, it would be improper and unreasonable to direct the Corporation to treat the select list as valid until the same gets exhausted.
21. Ext.P1 notification does not mention the number of vacancies to which selection shall be made. However, the affidavit filed by the Corporation shows that only four vacancies arose during the period of three years from the date of publication of Ext.P2 rank list and the four vacancies were filled by appointing the persons included in Ext.P2 rank list.
22. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that three vacancies of Legal Assistants had arisen long before Ext.P17 regulations came into force and the vacancies which existed prior to Ext.P17 regulations have to be filled up by selecting persons from Ext.P2 rank list or by adopting the procedure which was in existence at the time when the vacancies arose. Learned counsel for the appellants would rely upon the decision in Arjun Singh Rathore v. B.N.Chaturvedi : (2007) 11 SCC 605 in support of the contention that the vacancies which arose prior to the enactment of the new regulations regarding recruitment shall be filled up in accordance with the procedure which existed at the time when the vacancies arose.
23. The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the validity of Ext.P2 rank list had expired long before the occurrence of the three vacancies in the year 2011. The decision referred to above and relied upon by the appellants has no application to the facts of the instant case. The decision of the Apex Court dealt with promotion of persons in service. Here, it is not a case of promotion. Since new regulations regarding recruitment have come into force, the Corporation has to conduct recruitment in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. If the selection process had already been commenced in accordance with the procedure which existed earlier, then it should not have been abandoned midway and selection could not have been made as per the new regulations. That is not the case here.
24. A writ of mandamus can be issued by the court only when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the writ petition. In Government of Orissa v. Haraprasad Das (AIR 1998 SC 375), it has been observed that it is not for the court or the tribunal to direct the Government to make further appointments from the rank list by treating it as in force. If the authority concerned decides not to make further appointments for a valid reason, it cannot be said that it has acted arbitrarily by not appointing those whose names are included in the selection list. Whether to fill up a post or not is a policy decision and unless it is shown to be arbitrary it is not open to the Court to interfere with such decision of the authority and direct it to make further appointments.
25. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that since the names of the appellants were included in Ext.P2 rank list, they had a legitimate expectation that they would be appointed to the post of Legal Assistant. A legitimate expectation is not the same thing as an anticipation. It is distinct and different from a desire and hope. It is based on a right. In the absence of any right, there can be no basis for legitimate expectation. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law or custom or an established procedure.
26. The discussion above leads to the conclusion that the appellants are not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. We see no good ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge.
Consequently, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.