Note: This story has not been edited by LegalSeva and is generated from a news syndicate feed.

SC: Wait list candidate can’t claim right to appointment

Quashes HC Order On Appointment Of Technician By Prasar Bharati

New Delhi: Making it to a wait list for admission or in job recruitment is not enough as Supreme Court has said that a candidate in the waiting list has no vested right to be appointed except when the selected candidate did not join the post.

Quashing a Calcutta high court order directing Prasar Bharati to appoint a technician, who was first in the waiting list, in the subsequent recruitment drive, a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar said waiting list in one examination cannot used for subsequent recruitment drive as it would hamper the interest of candidates to participate in the subsequent selection process.

“While considering the entitlement of the respondent (the technician) to any relief on the basis of his placement in the reserved panel, it would be necessary to bear in mind the settled position that mere placement in
the wait list does not create any vested right for being so appointed. The right to be considered for appointment would spring only in the con-tingency of a selected candi-date not joining on his post. The wait list operates for a limited period. It cannot ex-tend for an indefinite period and in any event after a fresh process of recruitment has commenced,” the bench said.

SC said any right, which a waiting list candidate could claim, extinguished when all the selected candidates joined their respective posts.

The bench said that any right which a waiting list candidate could claim extinguished when all the selected candidates joined their respective posts and the recruitment process comes to an end and it cannot be extended to next process.

“There was no vested right in favour of the respondent to urge that he was entitled to be considered and appointed on any fresh vacancy arising in the future,” the bench said.

The HC had directed to appoint him as the broadcaster had assured of recruiting him if a vacancy arose in furture. It said the HC was much im pressed by the assurance.

“It is true that a statement made before the court has its solemnity and the party making such statement is bound to comply with the same. At the same time, it has to be seen as to whether such statement in the form of a concession, if given effect to would result in violation of any statutory rules or regulations. If such consequence is likely to flow, it would be open for the affected party on whose be half such concession in law was made to place before the court the correct position of law and urge that it may not be compelled to give effect to erroneous concession made on law,” the bench said.

“It appears that the high court glossed over these vital aspects while directing the appellants to absorb the services of the respondent. The available vacancies having been filled up in 1997 resulted in exhaustion of the wait list and the said process of recruitment had come to an end. The high court has, therefore, erred in directing the absorption of the respondent,” the court said.

For case specific advice, get in touch with Service Lawyers Punjab and Haryana High Court District Court Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Derabassi Kharar State Commission

More on 99888-17966