Mere Empanelment Or Enlistment Doesn’t Result In Accrual Of Indefeasible Right In Candidate’s Favour: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed a Civil Appeal filed by the Assam State and its officers against the Judgment of the Gauhati High Court’s Division Bench.
The Supreme Court observed that mere empanelment or enlistment does not result in accrual of any indefeasible right in favour of an empanelled or a selected candidate.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal filed by the Assam State and its officers against the Judgment of the Gauhati High Court’s Division Bench.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan reiterated, “We do not consider that an empanelled or a selected candidate has absolutely no right to move the writ court. We are conscious of the line of decisions of this Court and have noted some of them here, which lay down the law that mere empanelment/enlistment does not result in accrual of any indefeasible right in favour of such empanelled/selected candidate as well as the law that the employer may, in its wisdom, either decide to cancel the select list or not carry on the process further resulting in the notified/advertised vacancy/vacancies not being filled up pursuant to the selection process, which has been conducted.”
Senior Additional Advocate General (AAG) Chinmoy Pradip Sharma appeared for the Appellants while Senior Advocate Manish Goswami appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
A process of recruitment was set in motion by the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, by issuing an advertisement in 2014 to fill up of 104 posts of Constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force. The process of selection was conducted and the Respondents who had applied for the same, qualified in the physical efficiency test (PET), whereafter they were interviewed. It was claimed by them that the select list prepared by the Central Selection Committee, headed by the then PCCF, contained names of candidates found, prima facie, fit for selection and appointment as Constables in the AFPF and that such list, wherein their names figured, had been submitted to the Government for approval. In 2016, there was a change in the political regime of Assam pursuant to the Legislative Assembly elections.
Thereafter, the incumbent PCCF submitted a note to the Government highlighting serious anomalies that had crept in, in the selection process. Based on this, without conducting any inquiry, as alleged by the Respondents, the Government approved cancellation of the select list vide Order of the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment and Forests Department. The sole reason assigned for such cancellation was that the process was conducted in violation of the reservation policy as well as Judgments of the Supreme Court, as suggested by the PCCF. Subsequently, a fresh advertisement was issued in 2017 and two sets of Writ Petitions were instituted, challenging such a decision and the advertisement respectively. The Single Judge allowed the same and the Division Bench upheld it. Hence, the Appellants approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, noted, “… based on the note of the PCCF dated 4th July, 2016 and the recommendation made by him for cancellation of the select list, the decision of the Government to approve the said note and, thereby, cancel the select list did not stand vitiated to attract its invalidation either by application of the doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness or proportionality.”
The Court said that the Appellants’ decision in cancelling the entire selection process is neither arbitrary or unreasonable or without any sense of proportion.
“It has not been proved to our satisfaction that the impugned decision of cancelling the select list is the neat result of an injudicious exercise of discretion and was ill directed in the guise of achieving the sanctity of the entire selection process”, it added.
The Court, therefore, held that the impugned decision of cancellation was neither unjustified nor was one which could be upset by applying the doctrines of either Wednesbury unreasonableness or proportionality.
“… an empanelled/selected candidate can claim no right of appointment, if the State has cogent and germane grounds for not making the appointment. However, at the same time, it is also the law that the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims. Shankarsan Das (supra) cautions that the State has no licence to act in an arbitrary manner. In R.S. Mittal v. Union of India, a coordinate bench held that when a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then, ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment and that there has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel”, it observed.
The Bench reiterated that the employer must give cogent reasons for not appointing selected candidates.
Furthermore, the Court noted that any decision taken not to appoint despite there being vacancies and a valid select list, is in the nature of a policy decision. It remarked that securing public employment is the dream of many, who put their heart and soul to prepare for it.
“Nowadays, aspirants undertake rigorous study sessions as well as training modules to equip themselves, which also comes at a heavy cost. That apart, since every process of recruitment necessarily involves substantial expenses which are borne from the public exchequer and at the same time the aspirants for the posts (who, as per their own estimation, have performed sufficiently well and therefore stand a good chance of being appointed upon figuring in the select list) cherish fond hopes of a bright and secure future, the law is clear that the policy decision not to carry the process forward must be taken bona fide, there has to be justifiable reason if the process is abandoned mid-way, and such decision must not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or the whims of the decision maker”, it also emphasised.
The Court reiterated that a Writ Court may, upon reaching the requisite satisfaction, intervene in such manner and make such directions as the facts and circumstances warrant.
Moreover, the Court disagreed with the fact that the aspirants, not having an indefeasible or vested right of appointment, do not also have the right to question any decision adverse to their interest affecting achievement of their goals to secure public employment.
“Whether, and to what extent, any relief should be granted, must depend on the facts of each case. … On facts and in the circumstances, however, the respondents’ legal rights were not infringed because of absence of grant of legitimacy to the select list by way of an approval from the Government; hence, the writ petition should not have been allowed”, it said.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and granted liberty to the Appellants to take forward the process of filling up 104 Constables by publishing a fresh advertisement.
Cause Title- State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 334)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior AAG Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, AOR Diksha Rai, Advocates Piyush Vyas, Purvat Wali, Vijay Deora, Irfan Hasieb, and Krishnajyoti Deka.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Manish Goswami, AOR Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocates Priyank Adhyaru, and Priyonkoo Gogoi.
