COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR. versus UMESH KUMAR

Citation: [2020] 11 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 07-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
583
[2020] 11 S.C.R. 583
583
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR.
v.
UMESH KUMAR
(Civil Appeal No. 3334 of 2020)
OCTOBER 07, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Service Law – Non-selection in the revised result – In 2013, a
notice was published in the newspapers for filling up vacancies for
the post of  ‘Constable (Executive) – Male’ in Delhi Police – The
respondents were declared to be selected under OBC category –
However, it was found that an error had crept in due to the failure
to allocate a bonus mark to every candidate whose height was in
excess of 178 cm – In the revised result dated 17.07.2015, certain
candidates from the original list were ousted while new candidates
came in – Respondents were declared selected in revised result as
well – A set of OAs  were instituted by unsuccessful candidates
before the Tribunal challenging the answer keys prepared – An
Expert Committee was appointed – In the meantime, the joining of
selected candidates in pursuance of the result dated 17.07.2015
was kept in abeyance and no offers for appointment were issued –
Following the report of the Expert Committee, the results were revised
again on 22.02.2016 – As a consequence, the respondents were
ousted – The respondents filed OA challenging their non-selection
in the revised result dated 22.02.2016, however, the OA was
dismissed – The writ petitions filed by the respondents were allowed
and direction was issued to appoint them – On appeal, held: It is
settled that mere inclusion of candidate in a selection list does not
confer them a vested right to appointment – In the instant case,
after name of respondents appeared in the results declared on
17.07.2015, the process of recruitment was put in abeyance since
the results were challenged before the Tribunal – The process of
revising the results during the course of the recruitment was
necessitated to align it in accordance with law – The report of the
Expert Committee established errors in the answer keys – The
respondents failed to fulfil the revised cut-off – The respondents
are not entitled to any direction in their favour contrary to law
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
since they had no vested right to appointment – The revised result
was declared before offers of appoitment were made to the
respondents since the entire process of recruitment was put in
abeyance – Thus, the High Court committed error in issuing a
mandamus to the appellants to appoint the respondents.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The real issue is whether the respondents were
entitled to a writ of mandamus. This would depend on whether
they have a vested right of appointment. Clearly, the answer to
this must be in the negative. In Punjab SEB vs. Malkiat Singh,
this Court held that the mere inclusion of candidate in a selection
list does not confer upon them a vested right to appointment.  In
the present case, after the name of respondents appeared in the
results declared on 17 July 2015, the process of recruitment was
put in abeyance since the results were challenged before the
Tribunal. The process of revising the results during the course
of the recruitment was necessitated to align it in accordance with
law. An Expert Committee was specifically appointed following
the institution of proceedings before the Tribunal. The report of
the Expert Committee established errors in the 15 answer key,
and thereafter a conscious decision was taken, after evaluating
the report, to revise the results on 1 February 2016. In the fresh
list which was drawn up, both the respondents have admittedly
failed to fulfil the cut-off for the OBC category to which they
belong. As the ASG submitted before the Court, as many as 228
candidates are ranked above respondent in the first of the two
appeals on merit while 265 candidates stand above the respondent
in the companion appeal. The submission that these are the only
two candidates before this Court would not entitle them to a
direction contrary to law since they had no vested right to
appointment. [Para 14][593-G-H; 594-A, G-H; 595-A-C]
2. In Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, the Court then
refused the oust those individuals from service who did not make
the grade after re-valuation of the result since they had been in
service for nearly seven years. However, in the present case,
the revised result was declared even before offers of appointment
were made to the respondents since the entire process of
recruitme

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.