Candidate Selected In Recruitment Process Cannot Claim Any Indefeasible Or Vested Right To Be Allocated A Post Of His Choice: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Petition filed by a candidate applying to the Post of Assistant Professor and observed that a candidate who has been selected in a recruitment process and whose name is mentioned in the select list cannot claim any indefeasible or vested right to be allocated a post of his choice.
The High Court was dealing with an intra-court appeal directed against the judgment of a Single Judge Bench.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Kumar Birla & Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava asserted, “It is legally settled that the mere inclusion of the name of a candidate in the select list or the existence in the vacancies would not give a right to be appointed and also no mandamus can be issued in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in regard to the same.It is also a settled position in law that successful candidates in a recruitment process do not require a indefeasible right to appointment.”
Advocate Usha Kiran represented the Appellant while C.S.C. Gagan Mehta represented the Respondent.
The Writ Petition, in this case, had been filed seeking a direction to the opposite parties to give him a choice for appointment as Assistant Professor, Mathematics at Hindu College Moradabad or K.G.K.P.G. College Moradabad instead of Satish Chandra College, Ballia and permit him to join on any of the aforesaid two posts. The selection process, pursuant to an advertisement, was initiated for making selections for appointment to the posts of Assistant Professors in non-government aided colleges, which included 96 posts in the subject of Mathematics.
After the selection process, the petitioner submitted his preferential list of 30 colleges, in which Satish Chandra College, Ballia was mentioned at Serial No.28. The Director Education (Higher Education) wrote a letter to the Secretary/Manager/Authorized Controller, Satish Chandra College, Ballia, recommending the name of the petitioner, for being appointed on a post of Assistant Professor in that college.
The petitioner’s grievance was regarding the grant of placement at any of the institutions specified at serial numbers 1 to 27 of the preferential list submitted by him. However, it was the case of the Respondent that no vacancy existed at any of the said institutions.
The Bench, at the outset, noted that the procedure of appointment of teachers in the colleges which are affiliated/associated to the universities governed by U.P. State Universities Act, 19731 is to be as per the terms prescribed under Section 12 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980.
It was further explained by the Bench that the statutory scheme which governs the procedure for appointment of teachers, gives an option to candidates to indicate choice of colleges in order of preference in their applications; however, the Commission which is to make recommendations consequent to recruitment process is not to be bound by the choice given by candidates, and may, in its discretion make a recommendation for appointment in the college other than indicated by him.
“It is, therefore, clear that the option given to a candidate with regard to the colleges wherein he seeks appointment by his choice, would not in any manner be binding upon the Commission which is to make recommendation for appointment on the basis of the selection process”, it said while also adding, “It may therefore, be stated as a proposition of law that a candidate who has been selected in a recruitment process and whose name finds mention in the select list cannot claim any indefeasible or vested right to be allocated a post of his choice.”
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that the two colleges namely, Hindu College, Moradabad and K.G.K.P.G. College, Moradabad where the petitioner had sought to raise a claim for being appointed were not mentioned in the preferential list submitted by him. “...no mistake can be said to have been committed by the concerned authority in giving him appointment to a college specified at serial no. 28 of the preferential list submitted by the petitioner”, the Bench added.
The Bench also took note of the finding given by the Single Judge in the judgment under appeal that nothing was placed on record to indicate that any person standing lower in the merit was been given appointment in any of the colleges mentioned in the preferential list of the petitioner above serial no. 28 where the petitioner had been offered appointment. “The conclusion drawn thereafter that no illegality had been committed in offering appointment to the petitioner at a college specified at serial no. 28 of the preferential list submitted by the petitioner himself, in our opinion, therefore, cannot be faulted with”, the Bench concluded.
Considering the finding that the appellant had not been able to point out any material error or illegality in the order passed by the Single Judge, which might persuade the Bench to take a different view in the matter, the Bench dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Sudhanshu Aggarwal Respondent v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:197843-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Usha Kiran
Respondent: C.S.C.Gagan Mehta