U.P. BHUMI SUDHAR NIGAM LTD. versus SHIV NARAIN GUPTA

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 317 · Decided: 11-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, A.S. ANAND

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

U.P. BHUMI SUDHAR NIGAM LTD. 
A 
v. 
SHIV NARAIN GUPTA 
JULY 11, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Rights of candidate on panel-Mere existence of vacancy 
does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment-When subsequent to 
preparati~n of panel the post was abolished bona fide by employer, direction 
by High Court to appoint candidate on panel, held invalid. 
C 
Constirntion of India, 1950: Article 141. 
Law laid by Supreme Court-Duty of High Court to follow. 
The appellant-Corporation prepared a panel for the post of Finan-
D 
cial Controller. The respondent was at number two position in the said 
panel. In terms of the panel the post was offered to the candidate at 
number one position who did not join the post. Thereafter, the appellant 
abolished the said post and consequently it was not offered to the respon-
dent who filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the appellant's 
action in abolishing the post. The Corporation contested the case stating E 
that it advertised the post in view of the possibility of the World Bank 
entrusting a Reclamation Project to the Corporation but subsequently 
when it was conveyed to it that the setting up of the project was likely to 
be delayed considerably the post was abolished. The High Court issued a 
Mandamus directing the Corporation to appoint the respondent. 
F 
The Corporation preferred an appeal before this Court contending 
(i) that a candidate included in the merit list bas no indefeasible right to 
appointment even if a vacancy exists; (ii) in the facts and circumstances 
of this case, the Corporation acted bona fide and was justified in not 
offering the appointment to the respondent. 
G 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, 
this Court 
HELD : 1. Even if a vacancy is available and the employer bona fide 
declines to make an appointment, the candidate on the select list has no H 
317 
318 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A right whatsoever to claim appointment. In the present case the post was 
abolished by the Board of Directors. Therefore, neither the facts of this 
case nor the law on the subject warranted any interference by the High 
Court in the petition filed by respondent. The High Court fell into patent 
error in issuing the Mandamus to the appellant. [320-H, 321-A, B, 320-H) 
B 
c 
D 
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, [1991) 3 S.C.C. 47; State of 
Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, [1974) 1 S.C.R. 165; Neelima 
Shangla v. State of Haryana, [1986) 4 S.C.C. 268; Jatendra Kumar v. State 
of Punjab, [1985) 1 S.C.R. 899 and Sabita Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar & 
Ors., J.T. (1992) Supp. S.C. 135, applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4677 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.3.93 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 3215 (SS) of 1991. 
Gopal Subramanium, Vineet Maheshwari and R.K. Maheshwari for 
the Appellant. 
Sunil K. Jain for the Respondent. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted. 
Uttar Pradesh Bhumi Sudhar Nigam Limited (the Corporation) ad-
vertised for the post of Financial Controller in the year 1990. As a result 
p 
of the interviews held by the selection committee, a panel of three names 
was recommended to the Corporation. One S.K. Sachdeva was at number 
one and Shiv Narain Gupta, respondent in the appeal herein, was at 
number two in the said panel. An appointment letter was issued to S.K. 
Sachdeva and he was asked to join the post by October 31, 1990. S.K. 
Sachdeva having failed to join the post, Shiv Narain Gupta represented 
G before the Corporation that he, being next on. the merit panel, be con-
sidered for appointment to the post. When no action was taken by the 
Corporation for considerable time, Shiv Narain Gupta filed a writ petition 
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Lucknow Bench 
of the Allahabad High Court. The writ petition was allowed by a learned 
H single Judge of the High Court and a Mandamus was issued to the 
U.P. BHUMI SUDHARNIGAM LTD.,., S.N. GUPTA [KULDIP SINGH, J.[ 
319 
Corporation to appoint Shiv Narain Gupta to the post of Financial Con-
A 
trailer. This appeal by the Corporation is against the judgment of the High 
Court. 
Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned counsel for the appellant has 
contended that a candidate included in the merit list has no indefeasible 
right to appointment even if a vacancy exists. The Corporation, acco

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