VINODAN T. AND ORS. versus UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 26-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VINODAN T. AND ORS. 
v. 
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT AND ORS. 
APRIL 26, 2002 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Appointment-Assistant Grade-II in University-Selection-Preparation 
C of rank list-Cancellation after curtailing its validity to two years-Justification 
. of-Appellants claim rank list to be operative for three years and University 
bound to appoint them to vacancies arising within that period-University 
stating reasons for cancellation, namely, creation of new University, abolition 
of pre-degree course and ban on appointment of non-leaching staff-On appeal, 
D held cancellation not. arbitrary or unjust since there was statutory ban on 
appointment, with limited relaxation allowing provisional appointment and 
also there was no scheme of regularisation formulated by the University. 
Respondent No.I-University invited applications for preparation of a 
panel for appointment as Assistant Grade-Il in the University. Appellants were 
E selected and respondent No.I-University prepared rank list. However, 
respondent No.I-University cancelled the rank list prepared, curtailing the 
period of the validity of the rank list to two years. Appellants in their writ 
petition claimed that the rank list should have been operative for a period of 
three years and that the respondents were bound to appoint them to vacancies 
F which had arisen within that period. Single Judge of High Court disposed of 
the writ petition, Aggrieved, appellants filed an appeal. Other appellants filed 
original petitions.During pendency, respondent No. I filed an application for 
permission to engage Assistants on provisional basis. Division Bench allowed 
the same and appeilants were appointed on daily wage basis. Thereafter 
Division Bench disposed of the appeal and the original petitions. 
G 
In appeals before this Court, appellants relying on a resolution passed 
by the Syndicate fixing the validity of rank lists for all future selections at 
three years, contended that instead offilling up the vacancies arisen, Syndicate 
limited the validity of the rank list prepared in I995 to two years and cancelled 
the list altogether for no rational reason. It was also urged that the appellants 
II 
530· 
.. 
VINODAN T. v. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT 
531 
had been serving continuously for the last several years and, therefore, should A 
be regularized in service. 
Respondents contended that there was no stipulation either in the rank 
list or in any University statutes stipulating that a rank list would be valid 
for three years. It was further stated that the University follows the procedure 
of the Kera la Public Service Commission under which the validity of a rank B 
list was for a minimum period of one year and maximum period of three years. 
It is submitted that the Syndicate was fully empowered to fix the period of 
the rank list at two years. The decision to cancel the rank list was taken to 
carve out of the major part of the territorial jurisdiction of Calicut University 
to form a new University; to abolish the pre-degree courses by the State C 
Government and the consequent depletion of posts and to ban the appointment 
of non-teaching staff in the University. Further in any event the appellants 
bad no right to insist on regular appointment merely because they formed 
part of the rank list and also that the appellants could not claim regularization 
because they had worked temporarily on daily wages. The resolution relied 
upon by the appellants related to the Supplementary List for communal D 
reservation and not to the general list. Assuming that the Syndicate had the 
power to resolve in 1986 that the general rank list would be valid for three 
years, they must equally be conceded the power to amend. that decision. 
Admittedly they did so by which they cancelled the rank list 
Dismissing the appeals, the CQlll1 
HELD: 1. The principle that persons merely selected for a post do not 
thereby acquire a right to be appointed to such post is well established by 
judicial precedent Even if vacancies exist, it is open to the concerned authority 
E 
to decide how many appointments should be made. However, the selected 
candidates have a right to compel such authority not to make appointments F 
by travelling outside the list and to make the selection for appointment strictly 
in the order the candidates have been placed in the list (537-B, CJ 
State of Haryana v. Subhash Chandra Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220; RS. 
Mittalv. Unio

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