MOHD. RASHID versus THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL BODIES, NEW SECRETARIAT & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 76 · Decided: 15-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
76
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
MOHD. RASHID
v.
THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL BODIES, NEW SECRETARIAT &
ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2020 etc.)
JANUARY 15, 2020
[L. NAGESHWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Selection/Recruitment – Advertisement for recruitment on the
posts in question – Challenged before Administrative Tribunal on
the ground that alternative process of direct recruitment could not
have been resorted to without resorting to process of promotion –
Application dismissed by the Tribunal – High Court, in writ petition,
allowed the case of the writ petitioners – Appeal to Supreme Court
by the candidates of direct recruitment – Held: As per Recruitment
Rules, direct recruitment was to be resorted to only if the posts could
not be filled by promotion/deputation quota – The candidates of
direct recruitment have no right to dispute the action of filling up
the posts by way of promotion or deputation – The candidates cannot
claim any right of appointment merely because they had responded
to an advertisement.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The Recruitment Rules providing 50% quota to
be filled up by promotion failing which by direct recruitment and
another 50% by deputation quota failing which by direct
recruitment are being followed by the Municipal Bodies.
[Para 11] [82-B]
2. The appellants who are aspirants for direct recruitment
have no right for appointment merely because at one point of
time the vacancies were advertised. The candidates such as the
appellants cannot claim any right of appointment merely for the
reason that they responded to an advertisement. Even after
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 76
76
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
77
completion of the selection process, the candidates even on the
merit list do not have any vested right to seek appointment only
for the reason that their names appear on the merit list. [Para 12]
[82-C-D]
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC
47 : [1991] 2 SCR  567 – followed.
3. Since the selection process has not been completed and
keeping in view the mandate of the Statutory Rules, the appellants
have no right to dispute the action of the Municipal Bodies to fill
up the posts either by way of promotion or by deputation as such
posts are being filled up in terms of mandate of the Rules.  It is
always open to the Municipal Bodies to fill up the vacant posts
by way of direct recruitment after the posts by way of promotion
and/or deputation quota are not filled up either on the basis of
recruitment process already initiated or to be initiated afresh.
[Para 13] [83-B-C]
Case Law Reference
[1991] 2 SCR 567
followed
Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 136 of
2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.09.2016 of the High Court
of  Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 5431 of 2016.
With
Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2020.
Dr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Sr. Adv., Ajay Sharma, Tejas Patel,
Ms. Meera Kaura Patel, Ms. Rukhsar Khan, Pankaj Kumar, Gautam
Jha,  Advs. for the Appellant.
S. Wasim A. Qadri, Sr. Adv., Zaid Ali Subzposh, Ajay Bansal,
Praveen Swarup, Ms. Veena Bansal, Gaurav Yadava, Mrs. Archana
Sharma, Hrishikesh Baruah, Ms. Radhika Gupta, Kshitij Paliwal,
Ms. Memha Kaur, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Ram Naresh Yadav, Advs.
for the Respondents.
MOHD. RASHID v. THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL BODIES, NEW
SECRETARIAT
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
78
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The candidates for direct recruitment to the posts of
Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor and Collector1 are in appeals
before this Court directed against an order passed by the High Court of
Delhi on 1st September, 2016.
2. The candidates who were initially appointed as Lower Division
Clerks and promoted as Upper Division Clerks/Head Clerks invoked
the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal2 challenging
Advertisement No. 3 of 2013 dated 12th September, 2013 whereby, the
respondents set in process to fill up the posts advertised by way of direct
recruitment.  The argument was that the Recruitment Regulations for
the post of Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor and Collector in
North, South and East Delhi Municipal Corporations, 20133 contemplate
that the vacancies for the posts in question are to be filled up by promotion
failing which by direct recruitment.  It was thus alleged that without
resorting to promotion by convening meeting of the Departmental
Promotion Committee4, the alternative process of direct

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