Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. In (2002) 5 SCC 195, S. Renuka and Ors. v. State of U.P. 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.

11. In (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1697, State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. D. Dastagiri and Ors., the Supreme Court has taken the similar 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 he 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."