DIR. S.C.T.I. FOR MED. SCI & TECH. & ANR. versus M. PUSHKARAN

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 465 · Decided: 23-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

~. 
----
DIR. S.C.T.I. FOR MED. SCI & TECH. & ANR. 
A 
v. 
M. PUSHKARAN 
NOVEMBER 23, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) 
" 
~ 
Service Law: Appointment-Select list candidates-Right of 
appointment-Held: Mere inclusion of the name of candidates in the 
select list does not confer upon the candidates legal right to c 
appointment subject, to bona fide action on part of the State-On facts, 
selectee should have been offered appointment when posts were 
vacant-Policy decision to abolish the post as also contracting out the 
services was taken much after selectee challenged non-appointment-
Thus, no reason not to offer appointment. 
D 
_, 
,,( 
The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was 
whether the respondent whose name appeared at no. 4 in the select list 
had any legal right for being appointed against the post of three security 
guards advertised by the appellant-institute, when the post became E 
vacant and when the appellant had taken policy decision to abolish the 
-t 
post as also contract out security services. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Only because the name of a person appears in the F 
select list, the same by itself may not be a ground for offering him an 
appointment. The selectees do not have any legal right of appointment 
sub.iect, inter alia, to bona fide action on the part of the State. Therefore, 
the superior court in exercise ofits power of judicial review would not 
ordinarily direct issuance of any writ in absence of any pleading and G 
...... __; 
proof of ma/a fide or arbitrariness on the part of the employer . 
[Paras 11and16) [470-C, D; 472-F, G] 
1.2. The application oflaw would depend upon the fact situation 
465 
H 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A obtaining in each case. The respondent was to be offered with the 
appointment at a point of time when no policy deci~ion was taken. Thus, 
there was no reason not to offer any appointment in his favour. Why 
the select panel was ignored has not been explained. Even the purported 
policy decision was not in their contemplation. Furthermore, the 
B respondent is an ex-serviceman. He in ordinary case should have been 
offered appointment particularly when three posts were vacant. The 
decision to abolish posts was not taken at a point of time when he had 
filed the writ petition. It was expected that when the third candidate 
refused to join the post, he should have been offered the same. The 
C policy decision to abolish the posts as also contracting out the security 
services was taken by the appellant much thereafter, the respondent 
challenged his non appointment. The judgment of High Court that the 
respondent need not challenge the decision taken by the Government 
Body, when there was no decision in the resolution was adopted by the 
D Governing Body to abolish the post but only to fill up the permanent 
posts on contract basis, the next person included in the list for regular 
appointment was to be considered, cannot said to be perverse. Therefore, 
it is not a fit case for interference with the order of High Court. ' 
[Paras 17, 18, 19 and 20] (469-D, E; 473-D, E, F, G] 
E 
ShankarsanDashv. Union of India, (1991]3 SCC47;R.S. Mittalv. 
Union of India, [1995] Supp 2 SCC 230; Asha Kaul (Mrs.) and Anr. v. 
State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1993] 2 SCC 573; A.P. Aggarwal v. Govt. 
ofNCT of Delhi andAnr., [2000] 1SCC600; Food Corpn. Of India and 
Ors. v. Bhanu Lodh and Ors., (2005] 3 SCC 618; All India SC & ST 
F Employees' Association andAnr. v.A. Arthur Jeen and Ors., (2001] 6 SCC 
380; Pitta Naveen Kumar and Ors. v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti and Ors., 
(2006] 10 SCC 261; State ofRajasthan and Ors. v.Jagdish Chopra, (2007) 
10 SCALE 470; Union of India and Ors. v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Ors., 
(2007) 11 SCALE 257 and State of MP. and Ors. v. San jay Kumar Pathak 
G and Ors., (2007) 12 SCALE 72, referred to. 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5368 of 
2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 4.12.2006 of the High 
Court ofKerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 2075/2006. 
DIR. S.C.T.1. FOR MED. SCI & TECH. v. 
467 
M. PUSHKARAN [SINHA, J.] 
L. Nageshwara Rao, Ragenth Basant, Liz Mathew and Senthil A 
Jagadeesan for the Appellants. 
P.S. Narasimha, M. Gireesh Kumar and Khwairakpam Nobin Singh 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. A short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is 
B 
as to \\-ile

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