MANOJ MANU & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 8 · Decided: 12-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 8 
MANOJ MANU & ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6707 of 2013) 
AUGUST 12, 2013 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.) 
Service Law - Appointment/selection - Competitive 
examination - UPSC recommended names of candidates for 
C appointment - 6 vacancies remained unfilled because 6 of 
the recommended candidates did not join - UPSC. was 
approached to recommend names for the 6 vacancies -
UPSC recommended only 3 names - Two candidates who 
were next in the merit list and had secured same marks as 
o secured by one of the 3 recommended candidates, 
challenged the act of UPSC in non-recommending their 
names - Courls below dismissed their claim - On appeal, 
held: Though a person included in the select list, does not 
acquire any right to be appointed - But the decision of the 
E Government not to fill up the adverlised vacancies should not 
be arbitrary or unreasonable - In the instant case, decision 
of UPSC in forwarding 3 names against the requisition for 6 . 
vacancies was inappropriate - Exclusion of the names of the 
appellants, even when the vacancies were available, has 
F resulted in discrimination - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Arlie/es 14 and 16 - Office Memorandum dated 14th July, 
1967 - Clause 4(c). 
The appellants, who were working as Assistants in 
the Central Secretariat Service, appeared in Limited 
G Departmental Competitive Examination for the next 
promotion to the post of Section Officer's Grade in that 
service. After the examination, UPSC recommended 184 
candidates for appointment. Out of them, 6 candidates 
did not join. Thereafter 6 general category vacancies were 
H 
8 
.I 
MANOJ MANU & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
9 
requisitioned. UPSC recommended names of 3 A 
candidates from out of the reserve list maintained by it. 
The two appellants, who were next in the merit list had 
secured the same marks as secured by one of the 3 
recommended candidates. The appellants challenged 
their non-recommendation before Administrative 
B 
Tribunal, which was dismissed. The writ petition against 
the order of Tribunal was also dismissed. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Though a person whose name is included 
in the select list, does not acquire any right to be 
appointed. The Government may decide not to fill up all 
c 
the vacancies for valid reasons. Such a decision on the 
part of the Government not to fill up the required/ D 
advertised vacancies should not be arbitrary or 
unreasonable but must be based on sound, rational and 
conscious application of mind. Once, it is found that the 
. decision of the Government is based on some valid 
reason, the Court would not issue any Mandamus to 
E 
Government to fill up the vacancies. [Para 14] [18-G-H; 19-
A-B] 
State of Haryana vs. Subhash Chander Marwah (1972) 
llLLJ 266 SC - referred to. 
2. In the present case, however, after the UPSC sent 
the list of 184 persons/recommended by it, to the 
Government for appointment, six persons out of the said 
F 
list did not join. It is not a case where the Government 
decided not to fill up further vacancies. On the contrary G 
DoP& T sent requisition to the UPSC to send six names 
so that the remaining vacancies are also filled up. This 
shows that in so far as Government is concerned, it 
wanted to fill up all the notified vacancies. The requisition 
dated 20th November 2009 in this behalf was in 
H· 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A consonance with its Clause 4(c) of O.M. dated 14th July 
1967. Even when the Government wanted to fill up the 
post, the UPSC chose to forward names of three 
candidates. [Para 15] [19-B-D] 
8 
3. There is a sound logic, predicated on public 
interest, behind O.M. dated 14th July 1967. The intention 
is not to hold further selection for the post already 
advertised so as to save unnecessary public expenditure. 
At the same time, this very O.M. also stipulates that the 
Government should not fill up more vacancies than the 
C vacancies which were advertised. The purpose behind 
this provision is to give chance to those who would have . 
become eligible in the meantime. Thus, the OM dated 14th 
July 1967 strikes a proper balance between the interests 
of two groups of persons. In the present case since the 
D requisition of the DoP& T contained in communication 
dated 20th November 2009 was within the permissible 
notified vacancies, the UPSC should have sent the names 
of six candidates instea

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