Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation Can Be Invoked To Claim Substantive Entitlements Based On Practice/Promise Of Public Authority: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court reiterated that the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation can be successfully invoked by individuals to claim substantive benefits or entitlements based on an existing promise or practice of a public authority. 

In that context, Bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that, "it is clear that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is clearly applicable in the facts of this case, inasmuch as, the selection process having been culminated into the merit list, not giving effect to the same shall be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950. It cannot be denied that the petitioner had legitimately expected that with the culmination of the selection process, he shall be appointed to the post concerned herein. It also follows that it is a case where during the midst of the selection process the respondents decided to discontinue the same on the recommendations of the 6th CPC. The respondents‟ decision to cease the selection process surely frustrates the claim of the petitioner of legitimate expectation. Surely, the petitioner despite having been found selected for the post in question, the denial of appointment as legitimately expected by the petitioner in the facts of the present case, shall be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950."

Counsel Sangeeta Chandra appeared for the petitioner, while SPC DS Vohra appeared for the respondents.

In October 2008, an advertisement was published in a local Hindi newspaper in Kashmir for recruiting various trades of enrolled Followers (Group 'D' posts) in BSF. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process and cleared all tests. On November 2, 2008, the results were declared, and the petitioner was selected for the post of Washerman along with 38 other candidates. However, he did not receive an appointment letter. In 2016, he filed representations but received no satisfactory response. In 2018, the respondents issued a letter stating that due to changes in the Recruitment Rules of 2010, the petitioner did not qualify. The petitioner filed a writ petition in 2019, which was later dismissed, leading to the present petition.

The respondents stated that the recruitment process was conducted in accordance with the rules, but due to changes in the rules in 2010, the petitioner was found ineligible. They argued that the petitioner's case should be governed by the new rules. However, the petitioner contended that he should be considered under the old rules of 2000, under which he qualified for the Washerman post. The petitioner argued that he met the criteria under the old rules and should be given the appointment letter.

The Court observed that, "the petitioner had the legitimate expectation to be appointed to post in question as the selection process with respect to the same had already been initiated and a merit list thereof was already prepared and as such, the recruitment process initiated under the Rules of 2000 shall not be vitiated with the advent of the new rules, i.e., the Rules of 2010."

Subsequently, the Court ordered that the petitioner shall be given the appointment w.e.f., the date of culmination of the selection process as a "Follower" i.e., from October 2008. The appointment shall be made in the erstwhile Group-D Posts/ "Followers", and thereafter, he shall be given proper training to make him combatised. On successful completion of such training, he should be absorbed in the grade of combatant Constable (Washerman). It is clarified that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits. His seniority and pay fixation (on notional basis) shall relate back to the month of October 2008.

Appearances:

Petitioner: Counsel Sangeeta Chandra

Respondent: SPC DS Vohra

Cause Title: Abdul Ahad Azim vs Union of India

Click here to read/download the Judgment