Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

b) Three aspects can be noticed from the facts noted above:

Civil Appeal Nos.5035 - 5036 of 2016 PNR,J

(i) The selection process was completed by issuing appointment orders to all the 52 selected candidates;

(ii) Three candidates selected against Open Competition vacancies did not join; and iii) High Court on the administrative side was critical of de-reservation of one S.C. vacancy and filling all vacancies contrary to earlier decision to adjust further vacancies towards supernumerary vacancies created to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court concerning earlier recruitment.

32. As noticed above, this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognized the right of a candidate, who is next in the eligibility list to claim to include in the merit list and be appointed to a vacancy against which no appointment order was issued, as the more meritorious candidate did not apt to the post in issue. This right is subject to overarching decision of the employer not to fill a post, even if there is a vacancy, for valid reasons. From the proposition of law culled out from the precedent decisions, it is beyond pale of doubt that the selection process is complete only when appointment orders are issued to all the candidates included in the merit list to the extent of vacancies notified or a conscious, well considered decision is taken not to fill all or any of the vacancies.

33. In the case on hand selection process was not complete as candidate selected against SC reserved vacancy, Sri S.Arvind Kumar did not report for certificate verification and no appointment order was issued to him. In view of the law on the PNR,J subject, the claim of petitioner to include his name in the merit list against SC reserved vacancy, in the place of Sri S.Arvind Kumar, who has opted out for appointment as Assistant Engineer at the stage of certificate verification by the appointing authority, is valid. It is not the stand of respondents that they did not intend to fill up all the vacancies notified. In fact, it was offered to Mr. Arvind Kumar, but he did not evince interest. Only reason assigned to deny claim of petitioner was procedural, i.e., in view of G.O.Ms.No.81, ad hoc rule and Rule 6 of the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, and not on the ground that the Department did not intend to fill the vacancy for valid administrative reasons. In other words, only by treating the vacancy caused due to not reporting for certificate verification by Sri S.Arvind Kumar as fallout vacancy, petitioner's claim is denied.