Dismissed

G. Sudhir Raj v. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Rep. by its Managing Director

Telangana HC14 Mar 2013WA/59/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by an employee challenging the abandonment of his selection process for an internal promotion. The court held that participation in a selection process does not confer a legally enforceable right to appointment, especially when the employer abandoned the process to utilize surplus manpower. The court found the abandonment reason to be valid.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

G. Sudhir Raj Vs Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Rep. by… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI N.V. RAMANA AND

¶2

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶3

Writ Appeal No. 59 of 2013

¶4

DATED: 14-03-2013

Between:

G. Sudhir Raju

… Appellant

And

Visakhapatnam Steel Plant represented by its Managing Director, Visakhapatnam.

¶10

… Respondent

¶11

HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI N.V. RAMANA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶12

Writ Appeal No. 59 of 2013

¶13

JUDGMENT: (per the Acting Chief Justice Sri N.V. Ramana)

¶14

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 26.09.2012 of the learned Single Judge made in Writ Petition No. 9671 of 2000.

¶15

The appellant-writ petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition before the learned Single Judge seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in abandoning the recruitment to the post of Assistant Store Keeper for which written test and interview were held in the year 1992 and resorting to recruitment from the open market as illegal and arbitrary. A consequential direction was also sought to the respondent to consider the case of the appellant for appointment as Assistant Store Keeper with effect from 13.4.1992, i.e., the date on which the recruitment process was completed or at least from 1996 with all consequential and attendant benefits.

¶16

It is the case of the appellant that he joined the respondent-organization on 5.3.1987/5-9-1988 as Technician in Raw Material Handling Plant. While so, the

¶17

respondent-Organisation issued an internal Circular No. PL/NER/ASK/91, dated 10.9.1991 notifying its intention to fill up the posts of Assistant Stores Keeper in the Stores Department. According to the appellant, the written test and interview for the said posts were conducted on 16.12.1991 and 13.4.1992 respectively. Appellant also claimed that he was successful in the written test and interview and was hoping to get selected for the said post. However, subsequently, the appellant came to know that the process of appointment to the post of Assistant Stores Keeper from among the internal candidates was abandoned by the respondent and the respondent had resorted to recruitment from the open market. Challenging the said action of the respondent, the appellant filed the aforementioned writ petition before a learned Single Judge of this Court. While opposing the averments of the appellant, the respondent filed its counter before the learned Single Judge wherein it is stated that during the process of selection for the post of Assistant Stores Keeper pursuant to the circular dated 10.9.1991, it was noticed by the management of the respondent-organisation that there was surplus manpower in different branches of Engineering, Arts and Commerce and therefore it felt that it would be appropriate to abandon the selections so notified and to make use of such surplus manpower as Assistant Stores Keepers. It is further averred in the

¶18

counter affidavit that in the year 1996, pursuant to a direction issued by the Ministry to fill up backlog posts of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, a notification was issued by the respondent to fill up the posts of Assistant Stores Keeper in those two categories on 28.6.1995 and in terms of the said notification, written test and interviews were conducted on 30.11.1995 and hence it denied the allegation of the appellant that it resorted to recruitment from open market for filling up the posts of Assistant Stores Keeper.

¶19

The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the material on record, by the impugned order, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant did not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed to the post of Assistant Stores Keeper. The learned Single Judge also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India

¶20

and Others^[1] in coming to such a conclusion. The learned Single Judge also held that the reason assigned by the respondent for abandoning the selection to the post of Assistant Stores Keeper was just and valid and accordingly rejected the contention of the appellant that the respondent had abandoned the selection to the said post illegally and arbitrarily. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the present appeal.

¶21

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶22

and perused the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.

¶23

It is settled proposition of law that mere participation in the selection process does not confer any legally enforceable right on a candidate to seek appointment or to challenge any decision of the employer to cancel or abandon the selection process. Further in the instant case, the respondent-organisation abandoned the selection to the post of Assistant Keeper on finding that there was surplus manpower and hence the said action of the respondent cannot be said to be mala fide or arbitrary and without any basis.

¶24

Under the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the said order of the learned Single Judge.

¶25

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶26

________________ N.V. RAMANA, ACJ

¶27

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶28

14^th March, 2013

¶29

pnb

¶30

[1] AIR 1991 SC 1612

G. Sudhir Raj v. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Rep. by its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Sudhir Raj v. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Rep. by its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Andhra Pradesh Fertilizer Mixtures Manufactures Association Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its

Indira Park Walkers Association Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Narinder Kumar Dhingra Vs Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Vs The State

Manda Kavitha Vs Manda Shivaji

Banne Buchappa Vs Mr. Subrahmanyam