Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. As regards the relief sought for in WP No. 10740 of 2016, admittedly, the petitioner has not participated in the selection process. The petitioner, for the reasons best known, did not participate in the subsequent selection process, however, he has filed the writ petition and obtained an interim stay. It is not known as to what prevented the petitioner from participating in the selection process. It is brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the notification, which is impugned in WP No. 10740 of 2016, the fifth respondent was selected to the post of Deputy Director on 29.02.2016. The fifth respondent was given time till 31.03.2016 to join the post of Deputy Director. In the interregnum, the petitioner has filed WP No. 10740 of 2016 and obtained interim stay on 22.05.2016. The fact remains that the appointment of the fifth respondent has not been challenged by the petitioner.

15. It is to be mentioned that immediately after cancellation of the order appointing the petitioner, the post of Deputy Director remained vacant for which the notification, which is impugned in WP No. 10740 of 2016, was issued. The second notification was published after obtaining the approval of the competent authority namely the Honourable Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Culture. In the subsequent selection process, the petitioner did not participate. After following the due procedures, the fifth respondent was appointed as Deputy Director but even before he could join the post, this Court granted interim stay on 22.05.2016. As mentioned above, first of all, the petitioner has not participated in the subsequent selection process for appointment to the post of Deputy Director. In the subsequent selection process, the fifth respondent was appointed to the post of Deputy Director, however, the petitioner did not challenge the order appointing the fifth respondent to the post of Deputy Director. While so, I am of the view that the petitioner has no vested or accrued right to file the present writ petition.

17. Thus, it could be evident that even promotions given contrary to the Service Rules were held to be void by the Honourable Supreme Court. In the present case, the selection of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director was found to be contrary to the recruitment Rules. When the petitioner has not joined the post to which he was appointed, he has no accrued right, much less any service right. Even before the petitioner could join the post to which he was selected, the order of appointment was cancelled on the ground that the selection process were not in consonance with the Recruitment Rules. Subsequently, after following the recruitment rules, the fifth respondent was appointed to the post of Deputy Director, which has not been questioned by the petitioner till date. In such view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders, which are impugned in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are therefore dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2015 in WP No. 34917 of 2015 as well as WMP Nos. 9377, 9378 and 11017 of 2016 in WP No. 10740 of 2016 are closed.