Supreme Court of India
ALI HOSSAIN MANDAL & ORS.versusWEST BENGAL BOARD OF PRIMARY EDUCATION & ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 453
- Decided
- 9 May 2024
- Bench
- HRISHIKESH ROY
Holding
Appointments cannot be made from an expired merit panel, and shortlisting must follow the comprehensive merit assessment prescribed in Rule 8, rendering the Division Bench’s direction untenable.
Summary
The West Bengal Board of Primary Education issued a notification on 23 December 2020 to fill 16,500 primary teacher vacancies, publishing a merit list on 15 February 2021. After many positions remained unfilled, a single judge ordered that 252 writ petitioners be appointed to the remaining 3,929 vacancies, a decision later modified by a Division Bench which directed that these vacancies be filled exclusively from the TET‑2014 eligibility list. The appellants challenged this direction, arguing that the selection procedure under Rule 8 of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016 requires merit assessment based on a comprehensive scoring system, not merely inter‑se positions in the TET list, and that the merit panel had expired on 15 February 2022 as per Rule 12. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench’s method of shortlisting contravened Rule 8 and that the expired panel could not be revived, emphasizing that no vested right to appointment arises from a merit list once its validity lapses. Consequently, the Court set aside the Division Bench judgment and the earlier single‑judge order, refusing any appointments from the expired panel and confirming that the fresh recruitment process initiated on 29 September 2022 governs the remaining vacancies.
Issues considered
- Whether the shortlisting of candidates for appointment based on inter‑se positions in the TET‑2014 eligibility list departs from the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016.
- Whether the unfilled 3,929 vacancies from the 2020 recruitment process can be treated as part of the original 16,500 vacancies or must be carried forward to the fresh recruitment cycle commenced on 29 September 2022.
- Whether a merit list or panel that has expired under Rule 12 can be used to make appointments after its validity period without a statutory extension.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Primary school teachersTeacher Eligibility Test 2014TET 2014Remaining vacanciesCutoff marksPanel or Merit ListNext recruitment cycleFresh recruitment cycleVacancies not carried forwardShortlisted candidatesRecruitment process concludedPanel/Merit List extinguished after expiryNo vested right to appointmentCandidate suitabilityEvaluation criteriaDistrict Primary School Councils
Judgment
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 935 : 2024 INSC 453
Ali Hossain Mandal & Ors.
v.
West Bengal Board of Primary Education & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 1873 of 2024)
09 May 2024
[Hrishikesh Roy* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the manner of shortlisting candidates for appointment to
the posts of primary teacher as directed by the Division Bench was
in departure from the procedure envisaged under Rule 8 of the
West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016;
whether the remaining 3929 vacancies of primary school teachers
were to be treated exclusively as part of 16,500 vacancies for
which the recruitment process commenced via Notification dated
23.12.2020, or whether such vacancies can be carried forward
to the next recruitment cycle that commenced via Notification
dated 29.09.2022 instead.
Headnotes†
West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules,
2016 – rr.8, 12 – Procedure for selection of candidates – No
vested right to be appointed against notified vacancies –
Division Bench vide impugned judgment directed that
appointments against the unfilled 3929 vacancies be made
in a descending order of candidates’ respective inter-se
positions in Teacher Eligibility Test List 2014 – Aforesaid
3929 vacancies if to be treated exclusively as a part of the
recruitment process initiated through Notification dated
23.12.2020 and appointments against them if to be made
from the already-expired panel or Merit List notified on
15.02.2021:
Held: No – The selection process for appointment to the posts of
primary teacher was to be made by assessment of merit by the
Selection Committee as notified under Rule 8 of the Recruitment
Rules, 2016 – The recruitment process initiated on 23.12.2020
cannot continue indefinitely – The 2020 recruitment process
had concluded and thereafter, the fresh recruitment process
* Author
936 [2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
commenced vide notification dated 29.09.2022 – The Panel or
Merit List as notified on 15.02.2021 stood extinguished after expiry
of one year on 15.02.2022, as per Rule 12 of the Recruitment
Rules, 2016 as no extension was granted to the 15.02.2021
Panel by any competent authority and therefore no relief can be
granted to candidates who approached the court in May 2022,
i.e., long after the panel stood extinguished – Not appropriate
to direct appointments to be made against the remaining 3929
vacancies, from the already-expired Merit List – A panel or a
Merit List cannot be treated as if it exists in perpetuity, which will
facilitate making appointments as and when required – When
the panel expires or after the selection process is over with most
posts being filled, the benefit of appointments cannot be given
unless the panel’s validity is legally extended – However, no such
extension of the panel’s validity was granted – In conclusion of
the earlier process, a fresh recruitment process was undertaken
vide Notification dated 29.09.2022 – Furthermore, even when
vacancies are notified and an adequate number of candidates
are shortlisted, these candidates do not acquire an indefeasible
right to be appointed against those vacancies – Multiple factors
are to be taken into account by the Board – For such reasons
3929 vacancies remained unfilled by the time the panel’s
validity expired – No further appointments permissible from
the recruitment process initiated on 23.12.2020 when a fresh
recruitment process had commenced – Impugned judgment of
the Division Bench and the earlier direction given by the Single
Judge, set aside. [Paras 25-27, 29, 30]
Case Law Cited
State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors. [2010] 7 SCR
301 : (2010) 6 SCC 777; Union of India v. B. Valluvan [2006]
Supp. 7 SCR 755 : (2006) 8 SCC 686; Girdhar Kumar Dadhich
v. State of Rajasthan [2009] 1 SCR 585 : (2009) 2 SCC 706;
State of Bihar v. Mohd. Kalimuddin [1996] 1 SCR 314 : (1996)
2 SCC 7 – relied on.
Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. v. South East Central Railway &
Ors. [2018] 14 SCR 947 : (2019) 12 SCC 798 – distinguished.
List of Acts
West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 937
Ali Hossain Mandal & Ors. v. West Bengal Board of
Primary Education & Ors.
List of Keywords
Primary school teachers; Teacher Eligibility Test 2014; TET 1014;
Remaining/balance/unfilled vacancies/left over vacancies; Cutoff
marks; Panel or Merit List; Next recruitment cycle; Fresh recruitment
cycle; Vacancies not carried forward; Shortlisted candidates;
Recruitment process concluded; Fresh recruitment process; Panel/
Merit List extinguished after expiry; Already-expired panel/Merit
List; No extension granted to the Panel by competent authority;
Selection process over; Validity of the panel; Panel’s validity not
legally extended; Life of the panel/Merit List; Notified vacancies; No
indefeasible/vested right to be appointed against notified vacancies;
No right of appointment; Candidate’s suitability; Evaluation criteria;
District Primary School Councils.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1873 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2022 of the High Court at
Calcutta in MAT No.1734 of 2022
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 1874 and 1875-1876 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Vinay Navare, Jaideep Gupta, Dr. Menaka
Guruswamy, Rauf Rahim, Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Advs., Gohlam,
Ranjan Mukherjee, Anindo Mukherjee, Dr. Ram Kishore Choudhary,
Mohammad Usman Siddiqui, Mrs. Aisha Siddiqui, Ms. Sakeena
Quidwai, Chand Qureshi, Amit Pawan, Abhishek Amritanshu, Hassan
Zubair Waris, Aakarsh, Ms. Suchit Singh Rawat, Ms. Shivangi, Kunal
Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. Kshitij Singh,
Soumik Ghosal, Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Ms. Srija Choudhury,
Ms. Osheen Bhat, Ms. Nitipriya Kar, Ms. Anju Thomas, Ms. Astha
Sharma, Shreyas Awasthi, Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Rohan Trivedi,
Ms. Swapnil Baudh, Deepin Shani, Ms. Ananya Arora, M/s. Equity
Lex Associates, Salman Khurshid, Mrs. Naghma Imtiaz, Zargham
Ahmed, Ms. Sidra Khan, Ms. Riddhi Goyal, Ms. Sonika Choudhary,
Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Ms. Neha Rathi, Kamal Kishore, Ms.
Kajal Giri, Lavkesh Bhambhani, Utkarsh Pratap, Harshwardhan
Thakur, Parminder Singh Bhullar, Dibyadyuti Banerjee, Ms. Sumedha
Halder, Ali Ahasan Alamgir, Asif Iqbal, Rohit Jaiswal, Srikanth Reddy
938 [2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Gopavaram, Samreddy Bharath Simha Redd, Abhijit Sengupta, Bijay
Kumar Chatterjee, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Amit Kumar Chawla,
Ms. Suhasni Bangopadhyaya, Tejasavni Ghose, Binay Kumar
Das, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Arvind Gupta, Anindya Ghosh,
Raghavendra Pratap Singh, Amit Suden, M/s. Mukesh Kumar Singh
and Co., Mukesh Kumar Singh, Pawan Kumar Dhiman, Ikshit Singhal,
Ms. Kajal Rani, Ms. Sujata K Muni, J S Maratha, Rahul Maratha,
Subhasish Bhowmick, Ms. Manisha Pandey, Rahul Kushwaha, Ms.
Neerja Sharma, Sohit Bhardwaj, Ashutosh Singh, Devesh Kumar
Mishra, Satender Kr. Vashistha, Pranav Sachdeva, Ali Rahim,
Jatin Bhardwaj, Mandeep Kalra, Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Dibyendu
Chatterjee, Firdous Samim, Ali Asghar Rahim, Ms. Piyali Paul, Ms.
Fatima Baig, Shekhar Kumar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. Heard Mr. Jaideep Gupta and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Vinay Navare,
Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Mr. Salman Khurshid, Mr. Rauf Rahim and
Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned senior counsel, Ms. Sumedha
Halder and Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents & impleaders.
2. Relevant facts for the sake of convenience are taken from Civil
Appeal Nos. 1875-1876 of 2024, filed by the West Bengal Board of
Primary Education [hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’].
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The origin of the dispute lies in the Board’s Notification dated
23.12.2020 for filling up 16,500 vacancies of primary school teachers
with a qualification criterion of possessing the minimum NCTE-
prescribed training qualification and having qualified the Teacher
Eligibility Test 2014 [hereinafter referred to as ‘TET-2014’]. Thereafter,
a Merit List for 15,284 candidates was notified on 15.02.2021.
Subsequently, two more Merit Lists were published, covering all
the 16,500 vacancies that were notified by the Board. As per the
West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016
[hereinafter referred to as ‘Recruitment Rules, 2016’], the said panel
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 939
Ali Hossain Mandal & Ors. v. West Bengal Board of
Primary Education & Ors.
of candidates was then sent across to the respective District Primary
School Councils (‘appointing authority’ under S. 5 of Recruitment
Rules 2016) to make appointments therefrom.
4. At that shape, a few candidates who had not yet been appointed
approached the Calcutta High Court seeking directions that the Board
fill up the remaining vacant seats by reducing cut-off marks in each
category. After the unfilled vacancies were reconciled, the learned
Single Judge vide order dated 26.09.2022 directed that the 252 Writ
Petitioners be granted appointments against these unfilled 3929
vacancies. Subsequently, the Board notified the filling up of a fresh
set of 11,765 vacancies for primary school teachers vide Notification
dated 21.10.2022, considering the candidature from TET-2014 as
well as TET-2017 candidates.
5. Immediately thereafter, the Board filed an appeal (MAT No. 1734/2022
& CAN 1/2022) challenging the Single Judge’s order of 26.09.2022.
In dismissing the Board’s appeal, the Division Bench directed that
the balance 3929 vacancies of primary school teachers be treated
exclusively as part of the 16,500 vacancies pertaining to TET-2014
candidates only, for which recruitment process had commenced vide
Notification dated 23.12.2020.
6. The Division Bench concluded that the entire TET-2014 selection
as well as the appointment process was fraught with irregularities.
The Merit List contained only ranks of the candidates without offering
their comparative marks. It was observed that not just the TET-2014
candidates or Writ Petitioners before the High Court but the Board
itself was not aware of the cut-off mark at which appointments had
ceased. Marks were not disclosed to the unsuccessful candidates
and they were given only one-line intimation that they were ‘not
included in the present Merit List’. These features shrouded the entire
selection process into deeper suspicion, thereby further vitiating the
appointment process as opined by the Division Bench.
7. With this understanding, the Division Bench directed that the TET-
2014 Eligibility List be treated as the Merit List to determine inter-se
positions of the TET-2014 candidates, including those 252 applicants
who had filed Writ Petitions before the High Court. Consequently,
the Single Bench order dated 26.09.2022 was modified to the
effect that the 3929 left over vacancies were extended to all the
remaining TET-2014 candidates, in descending order of their inter-se
940 [2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
positions in the TET Eligibility List 2014, notwithstanding the fact that
these vacancies were carried forward through a fresh recruitment
Notification dated 29.09.2022.
8. Appeals herein have been filed by the Board & others to challenge
the Division Bench judgment dated 11.11.2022 of the Calcutta High
Court in MAT 1734/2022 and I.A. No. CAN 1/2022.
Submissions
9. The primary contention of Mr. Jaideep Gupta and Ms. Meenakshi
Arora, learned senior counsel, is rooted in the provisions of the
Recruitment Rules, 2016. They would refer to the procedure of
selection specified in Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, 2016 to
contend that the Merit List is based on evaluation conducted on
various parameters, following which marks are awarded to candidates.
Eventually, the Merit List is published and thereafter, appointments
are to be made on the basis of marks secured by the candidates
in the evaluation process specified in the provisions. However, the
directions issued by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment
provide for appointments to be made on the basis of candidates’ inter-
se positions in the TET Eligibility List 2014, which is in contravention
to the procedure specified under the Recruitment Rules, 2016.
10. It is then argued that the life of the panel/Merit List remains valid for
a period of one year from the date of approval by the Board. In this
case, since the panel was notified on 15.02.2021, it naturally expired
after one year on 15.02.2022. In this case, candidates filed their Writ
Petitions only in May 2022 i.e., approximately three months after
the panel had expired. Therefore, no individual could have claimed
any right of appointment in reference to the particular recruitment
process after the panel had expired.
11. Additionally, Mr. Gupta pointed out that the 3929 vacancies that
remained unfilled due to various factors were then carried forward
through a Notification dated 29.09.2022 as part of the fresh recruitment
cycle. Under the new process, 9500 appointments were already been
made from the advertised 11,500 vacancies. It would therefore not
be fair to dislodge the appointed candidates either from the previous
or current recruitment cycle.
12. Appearing for those candidates who seek appointment to the 3929
left-over vacancies from the initial pool of 16,500 vacancies, Dr.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 941
Ali Hossain Mandal & Ors. v. West Bengal Board of
Primary Education & Ors.
Menaka Guruswamy, learned senior counsel contends that although
the validity of the panel as per Rule 12 is one year, there is a provision
to extend the validity of the same by six months at a time but the
total period of such extension cannot exceed one year in any case.
13. It was argued that the learned Single Judge in WPA No. 8981
of 2022 gave sufficient opportunity to the Board to put forth the
relevant information pertaining to the entire recruitment exercise in
a transparent manner. Despite many such requests, directions and
reminders by the Court, information was not forthcoming about the
respective candidates’ ranks, marks, category, cut-offs, etc. Even
when the matter was posted for consideration on 26.09.2022, these
relevant information were not furnished by the Board.
14. Finding that the names of the 252 Writ Petitioners in WPA No.
8981/2022 are figuring in the particulars submitted by the Board
in a tabular form, the learned Judge issued direction that the 252
Writ Petitioners should be granted appointments against the unfilled
vacancies (3929). The Division Bench likewise noticed the inequities
that the candidates had been put through along with the arduous
nature of seeking employment as well as the lack of bona fide conduct
on the Board’s part. Therefore, left with no choice but to ignore the
Merit List fraught with irregularities, the Division Bench directed that
the appointments be made on the basis of the inter-se positions of
candidates within the TET Eligibility List 2014.
15. Mr. Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel in his turn pointed out that
the entire recruitment exercise had been done in a reckless manner
with little to no information in the public domain. Although the Merit
List had been notified by the Board, marks scored by candidates
were not put forth as part of the same. Additionally, even the
candidates were not informed of their scores or the cut-off mark to
be breached, to be included in the Merit List. In fact, the Board was
not forthcoming on why 3929 vacancies had remained, why no written
test was conducted and other relevant informations, pertaining to the
recruitment process. In light of the same, the counsel contends that
the panel, being full of such glaring lapses and errors, was not valid
in law and therefore the panel can’t possibly have an expiry date.
Discussion
16. As earlier noted, the recruitment for primary school teachers is
governed by the Recruitment Rules, 2016. The Rule 8 provides for
942 [2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the procedure for selection of candidates. After a prima facie scrutiny
of application forms by the Selection Committee, candidates are
made to undergo a round of interview(s) and aptitude test(s).
17. Thereafter, an evaluation is done on the basis of marks that are
awarded or computed as per the criteria. These are extracted here
for easy reference:
“8. Procedures of selection: ……. (3) Academic qualifications,
training, performance in the TET, Extra Curricular activities
and performance in viva-voce or interview and Aptitude
test, shall be computed in the manner as mentioned in
Table A below:-
Sl. No. Item for Evaluation Max. Marks
(i) Madhyamik pass under the West 05
Bengal Board of Secondary
Education or its equivalent
(ii) Higher Secondary pass under 10
the West Bengal Council of
Higher Secondary Education or
its equivalent
(iii) Training as specified by NCTE 15
(iv) Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) 05
(v) Extra-Curricular Activities 05
(vi) Viva-Voce or Interview 05
(vii) Aptitude Test 05
Total 50
Note 1.- The percentage of marks obtained by the candidate
in the Madhyamik Examination or its equivalent excluding
additional marks, if any, shall be reduced proportionately
to marks obtained out of 5.
Note 2.- The percentage of marks obtained by the candidate
in the Higher Secondary, Madhyamik Examination or its
equivalent excluding additional marks, if any, shall be
reduced proportionately to marks obtained out of 10.
Note 3.- The percentage of marks obtained by the
candidate in the relevant Teacher Training shall be reduced
proportionately to marks obtained out of 15.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 943
Ali Hossain Mandal & Ors. v. West Bengal Board of
Primary Education & Ors.
Note 4.- The percentage of marks obtained by the candidate
in the TET Examination shall be reduced proportionately
to marks obtained out of 5.
Note 5.- Marks out of maximum five (5) Marks as mentioned
in Sl. No. (v) of Table A of this rule shall be awarded to
the candidates, including para teacher, in the following
manner:-
Sl. No. Extra Curricular Activities Marks
1 Games and Sports 1
2 National Cadet Corps (NCC) 1
3 Arts and Literature 1
4 Performing Art (Drama) 1
5 Music 1
Total: 5
18. The evaluation criteria envisages marks to be awarded on relevant
academic qualifications, NCTE-mandated training, performance in
TET, extra-curricular activities, performance in the viva-voce and
aptitude test to the aspirants. Even within the criteria, extra-curricular
activities are to be awarded as per the candidate’s experience in
music, arts, drama, literature, etc.
19. As specified under the Recruitment Rules, 2016, the panel under
Rule 2(l) of eligible/selected candidates is to be prepared bearing
in mind the aggregate of marks provided in Rule 8(3) and Table
A appended thereto. It is clear that the evaluation criteria to be
taken into account as per Table A and Rule 8(3) is a far more
comprehensive method of evaluating a candidate’s suitability for the
post than the performance in TET i.e., a qualifying examination for
teaching eligibility. The impugned judgment however directed that
appointments against the remaining 3929 vacancies shall be made
in a descending order of candidates’ respective inter-se positions
in TET Eligibility List 2014.
20. Therefore, the manner of shortlisting candidates for appointment as
directed by the Division Bench is at loggerheads with and in departure
from the procedure envisaged under Rule 8. Being inconsistent with
the Recruitment Rules, 2016, such a direction cannot be sustained.
944 [2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
21. The next issue is whether the remaining 3929 vacancies are to
be treated exclusively as part of 16,500 vacancies for which the
recruitment process commenced via a Notification dated 23.12.2020,
or whether such vacancies can be carried forward to the next
recruitment cycle that commenced via a Notification dated 29.09.2022
instead.
22. Although the first advertisement reflected a total of 16,500 vacancies,
the Merit List (notified on 15.02.2021) was only for 15,284 candidates.
Thereafter, two additional Merit Lists with 478 and 738 candidates
respectively were notified thereby taking the total count to 16,500.
During the proceedings before the High Court, the learned Single
Judge on 22.02.2021 passed an interim order staying appointments
from the Merit List notified on 15.02.2021. However, the Division
Bench by its order on 04.03.2021 declared that the Board is bound
by the said Merit List dated 15.02.2021 and permitted appointments
to be made to the 15,284 posts. Thereafter, regular appointments
came to be made.
23. Since the panel expired after one year under Rule 12 of the
Recruitment Rules, 2016, the Board issued a fresh advertisement to fill
up 11,765 vacancies. It was argued that the unfilled vacancies should
be treated exclusively as a part of the recruitment process initiated
through Notification dated 23.12.2020 and the Court may modify the
Division Bench direction to the extent that the 3929 vacancies are
filled up on the basis of merit determined in consonance with Rule
8 of the Recruitment Rules, 2016. The aforementioned argument
can be accepted only if a legal justification is found for the Writ
Petitioner’s appointment to the 16,500 posts.
24. To better understand whether such a panel can be utilised for
appointment after its expiry and if there exists a legal right to be
considered for appointments to the notified 16,500 vacancies, it is
relevant to take note of the ratio in the following judgments:
i. State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors.1:
“16. A select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the
purpose of appointments, that vacancy can be filled up
taking the names from that list as and when it is so required.
1 [2010] 7 SCR 301 : (2010) 6 SCC 777 at 783. Para 16
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 945
Ali Hossain Mandal & Ors. v. West Bengal Board of
Primary Education & Ors.
It is the settled legal proposition that no relief can be
granted to the candidate if he approaches the court after
the expiry of the select list. If the selection process is over,
select list has expired and appointments had been made,
no relief can be granted by the court at a belated stage.”
ii. Union of India v. B. Valluvan2:
“17. The life of a panel ordinarily is one year. The same can
be extended only by the State and that too if the statutory
rule permits it to do so. The High Court ordinarily would not
extend the life of a panel. Once a panel stands exhausted
upon filling up of all the posts, the question of enforcing a
future panel would not arise. It was for the State to accept
the said recommendations of the Selection Committee
or reject the same. As has been noticed hereinbefore,
all notified vacancies as also the vacancy which arose in
2000 had also been filled up. As the future vacancy had
already been filled up in the year 2000, the question of
referring back to the panel prepared in the year 1999 did
not arise. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be
sustained.”
iii. Girdhar Kumar Dadhich v. State of Rajasthan3:
“16. Furthermore, the select list would ordinarily remain
valid for one year. We fail to understand on what basis
appointments were made in 2003 or subsequently. Whether
the validity of the said select list was extended or not
is not known. Extension of select list must be done in
accordance with law. Apart from a bald statement made
in the list of dates that the validity of the said select list
had been extended, no document in support thereof has
been placed before us.”
iv. State of Bihar v. Mohd. Kalimuddin4:
“ 8. As held in the case of Shankarsan Dash [(1991) 3 SCC
47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95 : (1991) 2
2 [2006] Supp. 7 SCR 755 : (2006) 8 SCC 686, Para 17
3 [2009] 1 SCR 585 : (2009) 2 SCC 706 at 709, Para 16
4 [1996] 1 SCR 314 : (1996) 2 SCC 7 at 12. Paras 8 & 9
946 [2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
SCR 567] even if vacancies are notified for appointment
and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the
successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right
to be appointed, unless the relevant rules indicate to the
contrary. It is indeed expected of the State to act bona fide
and for valid reasons in refusing to make the appointments
after the selection process has been gone through……..
Without knowing the nature of change it was not open
to the High Court to anticipate the policy and brand it as
unreasonable.
9. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that even
if it is assumed that the panel or select list had not expired
at the date of filing of the writ petition, the refusal on the
part of the Government to make appointments from the
panel or select list, vide letter dated 27-5-1993, could not
be condemned as arbitrary, irrational and or mala fide.
We, therefore, reverse the view taken by the High Court,
set it aside and hold that the original writ petition was
liable to be dismissed and we hereby dismiss the same.
No order as to costs.”
25. The opinion expressed in the above judgments makes it clear that
a panel or a Merit List cannot be treated as if it exists in perpetuity,
which will facilitate making appointments as and when required.
When the panel expires or after the selection process is over with
most posts being filled, the benefit of appointments cannot be given
unless the panel’s validity is legally extended. However, no such
extension of the panel’s validity was granted. In fact, in conclusion
of the earlier process, a fresh recruitment process was undertaken
vide Notification dated 29.09.2022, through which, 9500 candidates
have already been appointed.
26. That apart even when vacancies are notified and an adequate number
of candidates are shortlisted, these candidates do not acquire an
indefeasible right to be appointed against those vacancies. Multiple
factors are to be taken into account by the Board, including suitability
as per district, age, language, etc. before appointments are made.
For such reasons 3929 vacancies remained unfilled by the time the
panel’s validity expired. Before that, 12,571 appointments were made.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 947
Ali Hossain Mandal & Ors. v. West Bengal Board of
Primary Education & Ors.
27. As earlier noted, the selection process for appointment to the posts
of primary teacher is to be made by assessment of merit by the
Selection Committee as notified under Rule 8 of the Recruitment
Rules, 2016. The recruitment process initiated on 23.12.2020 cannot
continue indefinitely. The 2020 recruitment process had concluded
and the fresh recruitment process commenced thereafter vide
notification dated 29.09.2022. It would therefore not be appropriate
for this Court to direct appointments to be made against the remaining
3929 vacancies, from the already-expired Merit List.
28. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, learned senior counsel, placed heavy
reliance on the ratio in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. v. South
East Central Railway & Ors.5 to contend that although the selected
candidate may not have any vested right to be appointed against the
available vacancies but when the employer decides not to fill up the
posts, the discretion is to be exercised judiciously. On this aspect,
suffice it would be to say that the Rules provided for shelf life of one
year for the panel list. Admittedly, extension of the said list (notified
on 15.02.2021) was not granted by any authority. As the decision
to not act upon the expired select list is based upon the provisions
of the Rules, we are disinclined to accept the argument advanced
by the learned senior counsel based on the ratio in Dinesh Kumar
Kashyap. It may also be noted that the candidates in Dinesh Kumar
Kashyap (supra) had approached the Court during the validity of
the select list unlike in these matters where the first batch of Writ
Petitions came to be filed in May 2022, i.e., roughly three months
after the expiry of the said Merit List in February 2022.
29. In light of the above discussion, the following conclusions are reached:
i. The manner of shortlisting candidates for appointment as
suggested by the Division Bench in the impugned judgments
is inconsistent with the procedure laid down under Rule 8 of
the Recruitment Rules, 2016, and those, cannot be sustained.
ii. The Panel or Merit List as notified on 15.02.2021 stood
extinguished after expiry of one year i.e., on 15.02.2022, as
per Rule 12 of the Recruitment Rules, 2016.
5 [2018] 14 SCR 947 : (2019) 12 SCC 798
948 [2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
iii. No extension by any competent authority was granted to the
15.02.2021 Panel and therefore no relief can be granted to
candidates who approached the court in May 2022, i.e., long
after the panel stood extinguished.
iv. No further appointments is permissible from the recruitment
process initiated on 23.12.2020 when a fresh recruitment
process has commenced.
30. The impugned judgment rendered by the Division Bench on
11.11.2022 and the earlier direction given by the learned Single Judge
on 26.09.2022 are accordingly set aside. The concerned 252 Writ
Petitioners and others who are sailing with this group, do not have
any legitimate claim for appointments, to the remaining vacancies in
the form of the 23.12.2020 recruitment process. The appeals stand
allowed accordingly.
31. The IA No. 28252 of 2024 and IA No. 28255 of 2024 are allowed
to the extent of the prayers made by the applicant(s). All pending
application(s), if any, including impleadment or intervention
application(s), shall stand disposed of.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1873 OF 2024
32. In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 1875-1876 of 2024,
this appeal stands disposed of.
33. All pending application(s), if any, including impleadment/ intervention
application(s) shall stand disposed of.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1874 OF 2024
34. In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 1875-1876 of 2024,
this appeal stands disposed of.
35. All pending application(s), if any, including impleadment/ intervention
application(s) shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Civil Appeal Nos.1875-1876 of 2024 allowed.
Civil Appeal Nos.1873-1874 of 2024 disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Primary school teachers"Sign in to search