Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Same view had been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Ishwar Singh Khatri and Ors. 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 84, wherein it was held that selected candidates have right to appointment only against "vacancies notified" and that too during the life of the select list as the panel of selected candidates cannot be valid for indefinite period. Moreover, impanelled candidates "in any event cannot have a right against future vacancies." In State of Bihar v. Secretariat, Assistant S.E. Union, 1986 and Ors. , the Apex Court held that a person who is selected does not, on account of being empanelled along, acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment is at the best a condition of eligibility for purposes of appointment, and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed unless relevant service Rules says to the contrary." In the said case as the selection process was completed in five years after the publication of the advertisement, the contention was raised that the empanelled candidates deserved to be appointed over and above the vacancies notified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the contention by observing that callousness of Competent Authority in not completing the selection process and issuing any fresh advertisement in between, may not be justified but offering the posts in such a manner would adversely prejudice the cause of those candidates who achieved eligibility in the meantime.