A
K. JAYAMOHAN
v.
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.
APRIL 25, 1997
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]
Service Law :
Appointment-Candidate interviewed and kept in select list-But not
appointed-High Court holding that he acquired no absolute right to appoint-
C ment and it is not incumbent upon the authorities to appoint him--011 appeal
held, merely because a candidate is selected and kept in waiting list, he does
not acquire any absolute right for appointment-Even if there is a vacancy it
is not incumbent 11po11 the Government to fill up the sam-Hence no
inteif erence called for.
D
E
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3384 of
1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.96 of the Kerala High
. Court in W.A. No. 997 of 1996.
·
T.L.V. Iyer, Ajit Pudussery for the Appellant.
Ms. Malini Poduval and N. Sudhakaran for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
I
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgme~t of the High
Court of Kerala, made on 25.7.1996 in Writ Appeal No. 997/96.
The admitted facts are the two posts of Lecturers in Physical Educa-
G tion were advertised for recruitment in the year 1988 through the Public
Service Commission. Written Test and oral interviews were conducted in
the year 1992 and the Select List, a long list of 10 candidates was prepared
by the Public Service Commission; the appellant stood at No. 10 in the said
list. Two other candidates selected have already been appointed. Since
H there often exist some vacancies, the appellant, one of the selected can-
1046
K.JAYAMOHANv. STATE
1047
didates, made a represr.ntation to appoint him. That was rejected on the A
ground that pursuant to the amendment to the Kerala Collegiate Education
Service Special Rules, 1994 which came into force with retrospective effect
from March 13, 1990, higher qualifications were prescribed and since the
appellant did not fulfil the requisite qualification, he was not eligible and
could not be appointed. When the appellant filed writ petition, the single
Judge and on appeal the Division Bench of the High Court held that merely
because he was kept in the select list, he acquired no absolute right to
appointment and it is not incumbent upon the authorities to appoint him.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
B
Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel for the appellant, whether C
when asked to find out the selection is made only to two posts or more,
points out from page No. 2 of the judgment of the High Court that the
advertisement is only for two posts. In view of the fact that the advertise-
ment was restricted to the existing vacancies, namely, two posts, it is not
incumbent upon the authorities to appoint the candidate from the waiting
list. He has no right to appointment. It is contended that such an appoint-
D
ment is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India as
the candidates eligible when selected are denied of the opportunity for
applying for selection and get their rights tested.
It is settled legal position that merely because a candidate is selected
and kept in the waiting 'list, he does not acquire any absolute right for
appointment. It is open to the Government to make the appointment or
not. Even if there is any vacancy, it is not incumbent upon the Government
to fill up the same. But the appointing authority must give reasonable
explanation for non- appointment. Equally, the Public Service Commis-
sion/recruitment agency shall prepare waiting list only to the extent of
anticipated vacancies. In view of the above settled legal position, no error
is found in the judgment of the High Court warranting interference.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
E
F
G.N.
Appeal dismissed. G
Lex