The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the reduction of vacancies for Social Security Assistants. The bench held that vacancies are an administrative decision and candidates have no indefeasible right to appointment merely by appearing in tests or being empaneled.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4910 of 2016
=========================================================== 1. Nitish Kumar Son of Ganauri Rajak, resident of New Arfabad Colony, Near Dr. Arun Kumar Sinha, Gaighat, Gulzarbagh, District - Patna - 800007 (Bihar).
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
.... .... Respondents
Patna High Court CWJC No.4910 of 2016 dt.08-08-2016
2/6
City, Post - Begampur, District - Patna 800009 (Bihar).
.... .... Respondents
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Bose, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rohit Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 08-08-2016
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
order dated 3rd of November, 2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short “the Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 050/00044 of 2014, whereby an Original Application filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4910 of 2016 dt.08-08-2016
3/6
Patna High Court CWJC No.4910 of 2016 dt.08-08-2016
4/6
may vary from time to time. Since the number of vacancies were reduced keeping in view the discrepancies in the roster system, the petitioners who have yet not qualified the examination process cannot be said to have any right to claim appointment against the vacancies notified earlier. Even in case, the petitioners have qualified in skill test it will not confer any enforceable right in favour of the petitioners. Reference may be made to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Kulwinder Pal Singh and another V. State of Punjab and others, A.I.R. 2016 Supreme Court 2281, wherein the Court held to the following effect :
“11. It is fairly well-settled that merely because the name of a candidate finds place in the select list, it would not give him indefeasible right to get an appointment as well. The name of a candidate may appear in the merit list but he has no indefeasible right to an appointment (vide Food Corporation of India and Ors. v. Bhanu Lodh and Ors.,(2005) 3 SCC 618 : (AIR 2005 SC 2775); All India SC & ST Employees’ Association & Anr. v. A. Arthur Jeen & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 380 : (AIR 2001 SC 1851) and Union of Public Service Commission v. Gaurav Dwivedi and Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 180 : (AIR 1999 SC 2137).
“14. A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to
Patna High Court CWJC No.4910 of 2016 dt.08-08-2016
5/6
be appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate. ……
the selection does not confer any enforceable right to seek appointment, the petitioners, who have not qualified, cannot be
Patna High Court CWJC No.4910 of 2016 dt.08-08-2016
6/6
permitted to make any grievance in respect of the reduction of the vacancies.
present writ application. The same is dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta, J)
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
Narendra/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 12.08.2016 Transmission Date
3 issues framed by the court
Whether candidates can claim a right to appointment due to reduction in vacancies after appearing in selection tests.
Whether reduction of vacancies based on roster discrepancies amounts to arbitrary action.
If mere empanelment or appearance in select list creates an indefeasible right to employment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Pal Singh and another v. State of Punjab and othersFollowed¶46
Kulwinder Pal Singh and another V. State of Punjab and others, A.I.R. 2016 Supreme Court 2281 · Who else cites this
Food Corporation of India and Ors. v. Bhanu Lodh and Ors.Referred¶47
Food Corporation of India and Ors. v. Bhanu Lodh and Ors.,(2005) 3 SCC 618 : (AIR 2005 SC 2775) · Who else cites this
All India SC & ST Employees' Association & Anr. v. A. Arthur Jeen & Ors.Referred¶47
All India SC & ST Employees' Association & Anr. v. A. Arthur Jeen & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 380 : (AIR 2001 SC 1851) · Who else cites this
Union of Public Service Commission v. Gaurav Dwivedi and Ors.Referred¶47
Union of Public Service Commission v. Gaurav Dwivedi and Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 180 : (AIR 1999 SC 2137) · Who else cites this
State of Orissa & Anr. v. Rajkishore Nanda and Ors.Followed¶48
State of Orissa & Anr. v. Rajkishore Nanda and Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 777 : (AIR 2010 SC 2100 · Who else cites this
Manoj Manu and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.Followed¶54
Manoj Manu and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2013 (10) SCALE 204: (2013) 12 SCC 171 : (AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 927) · Who else cites this
Nitish Kumar
Union of India
Central Provident Fund Commissioner
Hemant Gupta
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
