Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. However, as contended on behalf of learned Counsel for Nagar Nigam that in absence of original records, documents the selection process could not be said to be complete and no direction could be issued to finalise the selection on the basis of duplicate records in peculiar facts and circumstances when the Selection Committee before it could finalise the selection and make recommendation became obsolete, therefore, for taking any further steps a fresh Selection Committee has to be constituted, which too, as well as Nagar Nigam are not under statutory obligation to declare the result in absence of original records/documents. Even after selection the petitioners do not acquire legal right of appointment even if vacancy is persisting for sometime. According to the respondents for the sake of argument even if the petitioners were recommended to the post of 'Naib Moharnr' after declaration of the result of said selection in question, do not acquire any legal right merely because they were likely to be put in the penal of select list. According to the respondents, the selection in question has become obsolete and cannot be revived irrespective of the fact that subsequent selection for recruitment to the post of 'Naib Moharrir' in Nagar Nigam had taken place or not.

13. In (2002) 5 SCC 195, S. Renuka and Ors. v. State of UP. and Anr., the Supreme Court while acknowledging the decision made in above two cases R.S. Mittal (supra) and Munna Roy (supra), has however held that no right accrues to a person merely because a person is selected and his or her name is put on a panel and the candidates have no right to claim the appointment.

14. In (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1697, State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. D. Dastagiri and Ors., the Supreme Court has taken the smililar view and has held that no vested right accrue to the candidates to be appointed even if selection process was completed and the Supreme Court has observed in Para 4 as below --

"4. There is serious dispute as to the completion of selection process. According to the appellants, the selection process was not complete. No record has been placed before us to show that the selection process was complete, but, it is not disputed that the select list was not published. In Paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit, referred above, the respondents themselves had admitted that the selection process was cancelled at the last stage. In the absence of publication of select list, we are inclined to think that the selection process was not complete. Be that as it may, even if the selection process was complete and assuming that only select list was remained to be published, that does not advance the case of the respondents for the simple reason that even the candidates who are selected and whose names find place in the select list, do not get vested right to claim appointment based on the select list. It was open to the State Government to take a policy decision either to have prohibition or not to have prohibition in the State. Certainly, the Government had right to take a policy decision. If pursuant to a policy decision taken to impose prohibition in the State there was no requirement for the recruitment of Constables in the Excise Department, nobody can insist that they must appoint candidates as Excise Constables. It is not the case of the respondents that there was any malafide on the part of the appellants in refusing the appointment to the respondents after the selection process was complete. The only claim was that the action of the appellants, in the appointing the respondents as Excise Constables, was arbitrary. In the light of the facts that we have stated above, when it was open to the Government to take a policy decision, we fail to understand as to how the respondents can dub the action of the respondents as arbitrary, particularly, when they did not have any right as such to claim appointments. In the absence of selection and publication of select list, mere concession or submission made by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the appellant-State cannot improve the case of the respondents. Similarly, such submission cannot confer right on the respondents, which they otherwise did not have."

"The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to enforce rule of law and not pass order or direction which is contrary to what has been injected by law,"

29. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and I have perused the documents, I find that the petitioners were allowed to participate in the interview, however, for the non-availability of the original records pertaining the Selection, the then Selection Committee could not recommend the names of the candidates as an out come for issuing the appointment to the post of 'Naib Moharrir'. The selection in question was yet to be finalised and even after finalisation of the selection process if the petitioners were declared successful and was placed in the panel even then they do not have any legal right to the said post of 'Naib Moharrir'. In absence of original records and documents, when the earlier Selection Committee had become obsolete, and in absence of publication of select list, this Court is of the view that the selection process was not complete. It was open to Nagar Nigam/the respondents, to take a policy decision or to put restriction or to proceed further in respect of completion of selection, keeping in view the requirement, no body could insist upon that the respondents must complete the selection process and thereafter declare the result, it is not the case of the petitioners that there was any malafide on the part of the respondents in refusing the appointment to the petitioners after the selection process was complete, the only claim was that opposite parties/the respondents have failed to honour the recommendation of the Selection Committee in an illegal and arbitrary manner. In the light of the facts that when it was always open to take a policy decision by the Nagar Nigam, this Court fails to understand as to how the action of respondents could be arbitrary and illegal, when the petitioners have no right or claim for appointment. Be that as it may, even if selection process was complete and assuming that only select list was remained to be published that does not advance and strengthen the case of the petitioners for the simple reason that even if the candidates who are recommended, and shown selected and whose names find place in the select list, do not get vested right to claim appointment based on the select list. Even if the vacancies were available and it is presumed that the petitioners were put in select list, it was upto the respondents to decide how many appointments were to be made, if at all, the respondents were to choose to issue the orders of appointment in favour of the selected candidates. In the present facts and circumstances the respondents cannot be compelled to declare the result and issue appointment orders. The Selection Committee constituted for the purpose now by efflux of time has also become non-existence or obsolete and no direction at this belated stage may be directed to be re-constituted. This Court has some reservation to give directions at this stage i.e., after 171/2 years for finalisation of the said selection by issuing a mandamus for declaration of result and to give appointments to the petitioners.