Supreme Court of India

SRI SANJOY BHATTACHARJEEversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 1997 INSC 250
Decided: 10 March 1997
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG T NANAVATI

Holding

Placement on a waiting list does not confer a vested right to appointment; subsequent vacancies must be filled from the open market consistent with constitutional equality.

Summary

Sanjoy Bhattacharjee, a diploma‑engineer, applied for a technician post and was placed on a waiting list after the 480 notified vacancies were filled. He filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking his appointment according to his rank and a stay on fresh recruitment until the waiting list was exhausted. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, holding that mere inclusion on a waiting list does not create a vested right to appointment and that subsequent vacancies must be filled from the open market in accordance with Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal’s view, noting that no candidate lower on the waiting list had been appointed and therefore there was no grievance warranting relief. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a candidate placed on a waiting list after selection acquires a vested right to appointment.
Whether the authorities may conduct fresh recruitment for subsequent vacancies before the waiting list is exhausted.
Whether directing a stay on fresh recruitment would violate Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.

Subjects

service lawselectionwaiting listappointment rightconstitutional lawArticle 14Article 16recruitmentCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment

                        SRI SANJOY BHATTACHARJEE                                  A
                                          v.
                           UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                 MARCH 10, 1997

                 (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T'. NANAVATI, JJ.J                            B

           Service Law :

            Selection---Candidate placed on waiting list--R.ight to appoint-
     ment-After filling up the notified vacancies from the select list Department C
     advertised the subsequent vacancies--<:andidate figuring 011 waiting list filed
     application be/ore Tribunal for direction to make appointments from the
     waitmg list and stay of fresh recruitment till the said list got exhausted-Held,
     merely because the petitioner has been put in the waiting list, he does not get
     any vested right to an appointment-After filling up the notified vacancies
     from the select list, for subsequent vacancies everyone in the open market is D
     entitled to apply for consideration on merit in accordance with law-Constitu-
     tion of India, Articles 14 and 16(1).
             .                                 .                         .
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
     No. 6175 of 1997.
                                                                                  E
           From the Judgment and Order dated 8.7.96 of the Central Ad-
     ministrative Tribunal, Calcutta in O.A. No 879 of 1993.

           Sarla Chandra and Pradeep Mukherjee for the Petitioners.

           The following Order of the Court was delivered :                        F

           Delay condoned.

           This special leave petition has been filed against an order of the
     Central Administrative Tribunal, made on July 8, 1996 made in O.A. No. G
     879/93.


--         Admittedly, the petitioner, having acquired Diploma in Engineering,
     had applied for and stood selected as Technician. The vacancies notified
     were 480. His ranking on merit is 779. Since he was not appointed to the
     post, he filed the O.A. in the Tribunal. It was contended that while he was H
                                         915
    916                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (1997) 2 S.C.R.

A looking forward to his appointment in accordance with the selection: in-
    stead of making the appointment the authorities issued notification for
    fresh recruitment, thus, defeating the right of the petitioner and others
    similarly situated. Therefore, direction to the respondent-authorities to
    appoint him, as per his ranking in the select list for the year 1989 was
B   sought. Stay of fresh recruitment till the said list got exhausted, was also
    sought. The Tribunal has dismissed the petition holding that mere putting
    a candidate in the select list does not confer on him any right to appoint-
    ment. Selectio~ was made only for filling up 480 vacancies; after the
    absorption thereof, selection has to be made for the subsequent vacancies
    from the open market and, therefore, directions sought could not be given.
C   We find that the reason given by the Tribunal are well justified. Merely
    because the petitioner has been put in the waiting list, he does not get any
    vested right to an appointment. It is not his case that any one below his
    ranking in the waiting list has been appointed which could give him cause
    for grievance. Thus, he cannot seek any direction for his appointment.
D         For subsequent vacancies, every 9ne in the open market is entitled
    to apply for consideration of his/her claim on merit in accordance with law
    and it would be consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) of
    the Constitution. Therefore, direction sought for not to fill up t:1e vacancies
    having arisen subsequently until the candidates in the waiting list are
E   exhausted, cannot be granted. The Tribunal rightly refused to grant any
    such direction.

           The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

    R.P.                                                       Petition dismissed.

                                                                                      I

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "service law"Sign in to search