LexSTATE OF ORISSA & ANR. versus RAJKISHORE NANDA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 301 STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. v. RAJKISHORE NANDA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2808 of 2008) JUNE 3, 2010 [DR B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Service Law: A B Recruitment - Select List prepared - Appointment made on the notified vacancies - Candidates, who were not C appointed, but whose names were in the Select List, approaching Tribunal seeking direction for appointment - Tribunal directing the State to give appointment to all the candidates in the Select List - High Court, in appeal directing to give appointment only to the candidates who approached D the tribunal - On appeal, held: Filling up vacancies, over the notified vacancies is not permissible as it amounts to filling up future vacancies -Such rule can be deviatetJ only in exceptional circumstances and in emergent situ~tion only after adopting policy decision based on some rational - A E person who.se name appears in the Select List 'does not acquire any indefecisible right of appointment -- Select List not to be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments - Vacancies to be filled up as per statutory rules and in conformity with constitutional mandate - Once the selection F process in respect of certain number of vacancies is over, it is not open to offer appointment to persons from the unexhausted Select List - Courts/Tribunals are not competent to issue direction to initiate selection process to fill up vacancies - Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of G Recruitment to Posts of Junior Clerks in the District Offices) Rules, 1985 - rr. 6, 11 (1) and 12. To fill up 33 vacancies of Junior Clerks a Select List of 66 candidates was published. Appointments were 301 H 302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A made. Respondents, whose names appeared in the Select List and were not offered appointment, filed applications before Central Administrative Tribunal seeking direction to offer them appointment. The Tribunal concluded that appointments were to be offered to all the B candidates till the entire Select List stood exhausted. Tribunal directed to offer appointment to all the left-over candidates in the Select List. In the writ petition, High <;;ourt modified the order of the Tribunal, directing the appellants to offer appointment C to those who had approached the tribunal. Hence the appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Filling up the vacancies over the notified D vacancies is neither permissible nor desirable, for the reason, that it amounts to "improper exercise of power and only in a rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation, such a rule can be deviated an·d. such a deviation is permissible only after adopting policy E decision based on some rational", othe..Wise the exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future vacancies and thus, not permissible in law. [Para 10) [310-G-H; 311-A-B] State of Bihar and Ors. vs. The Secretariat Assistant S.E. F Union 1986 and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 736; Prem Singh and Ors. vs. f-/aryana State Electricity Board and Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 319; Ashok Kumar and Ors. vs. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 976; Surinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 18; G Rakhi Ray and Ors. vs. High Court of Delhi AIR 2010 SC 932; State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2900; Mukul Saikia and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. AIR 2009 SC 747, relied on. H 2. A person whose name appe~rs in the Select List STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. v. RAJKISHORE NANDA 303 & ORS. ETC. does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. A Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional B mandate. Select List cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments. [Paras 13 and 15] [312-8- C; G-H] Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 1612; Asha Kaul and Anr vs. State of J & Kand Ors. (1993) 2 sec C 573; Union of India vs. S.S Uppal AIR 1996 SC 2340; Bihar Public Service Commission vs. State of Bihar AIR 1997 SC 2280; Simancha/ Panda vs. State of Orissa and Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 669; Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors. vs. · Malkiat Singh (2005) 9 S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.