Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The petitioners claim that they qualified the physical efficiency test. In the result published by the Board on 12 June 2022, the name of the petitioners did not find place in the select list. The Board forwarded the final merit list with its recommendation to the Head of Department, in terms of Rule 15(e) of Rules, 2015. The final select list was subject to the candidates clearing medical test and character verification. There is no provision for preparation of waiting list under the Rules, 2015. The Head of Department after according his approval shall forward the list sent by the Board to the Appointing Authority for further action.

15. Rule 16 of Rules, 2015 provides for character verification of the candidates recommended by the Board. The Rule mandates that character verification shall be completed under the supervision of the Appointing Authority before issuing appointment letter and before sending the candidate for training. The Rule reads thus:

"The candidates found unsuccessful in the Medical Examination shall be declared unfit by the appointing authority and such vacancies shall be carried forward for the next selection"

16. In this backdrop, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rule 15(f) is inherently arbitrary as it does not provide for the waiting list.

17. Accordingly, it is submitted that all those candidates who were not found fit in the medical examination, and/or, character verification, such vacancies would remain unfilled and is required to be carried forward for next selection. It is submitted that petitioners who had successfully qualified the written and other examinations/tests may be treated as candidates in the waiting list and their names be sent for medical examination/character verification.

27. The alleged procedural lapse in carrying out the recruitment is not made out. The direction to fill up the vacant posts cannot be given only for the reason that in the medical examination or character verification, certain candidates were eliminated. It is more so when the Rule provides for carry forward of the vacancy as a consequence thereof. It is also settled law that mere participation in the selection or even placement in the select list does not give indeficiable right of appointment. The aforesaid issue has been touched in detailed by the learned Single Judge. It may be true that number of posts remained vacant but that is due to declaration of certain candidates to be medically unfit or in absence of character verification but merely for the reason that certain posts remained unfilled would not invite an interpretation of the Rule different than what was intended by the legislatures. When Rule 15(e) is specific and directs preparation of the select list equivalent to the number of vacancies with restrain on wait list, then consequence was to follow. Accordingly, we are unable to accept any of the arguments raised by the appellants. It is also that unfilled posts in the recruitment of 2015 were carried forward and taken in account for recruitment in the year 2018. With the next selection, the issue pertaining to recruitment of year 2015 would not have survived."