Merely By Appearing In Selection Process, Candidates Do Not Get Indefeasible Right To Get Appointment: Delhi HC

The Court said that the Authority having invited Applications is under no obligation to offer appointments especially when a candidate has not even been able to make a place in the merit list.

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the Original Application and Review Application.

The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia observed, “Merely by appearing in the selection process, the applicants/candidates such like petitioner, do not get indefeasible right to get appointment and respondent, having invited applications, is under no obligation to offer appointment especially when a candidate has not even been able to make place in the merit list. The petitioner having secured 127 marks against 128 cut off marks, cannot claim appointment.”

Advocate Ankur Chhibber appeared for the Appellant and CGSC Vineet Dhanda appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The Petitioner applied for the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police but was not selected as he missed the cut-off by one point. He challenged the recruitment process and argued that unfilled vacancies should have been allocated to him. The Tribunal dismissed his claim. He was later appointed in a 2009 recruitment but sought seniority adjustment, which was also denied to him. After a failed Review Application, the Petitioner approached the High Court seeking parity with other candidates who were appointed after the selection process.

The Court observed, “There is no dispute to the settled position, as has been held in a catena of decisions, that if vacancies remain unfilled due to non-appointment or non-joining of candidates, those who are in wait list, be offered appointment in terms of their merit. However, such a candidate shall come within the range of merit and only then, should be offered selection and appointment; and not otherwise.”

“In respect of vacancies having arisen due to join-joining of candidates, death or unsuccessful in training within a span of one year, this Court finds that such vacancies cannot be foreseen or anticipated and thus, preparation of wait list for such vacancies could not have been possible for respondent and as such, those vacancies were rightly carried forward for the next recruitment cycle.”, the Court observed further.

The Court mentioned the Supreme Court decision in Vallampati Sathish Babu Vs. State of A.P. (2022) 13 SCC 193 where SC held that, “…once final select list was prepared and the waitlist was not contemplated and the posts vacant were carried forward for whatsoever reason for future recruitment; the candidate next in merit cannot claim appointment as his name neither figured in the select list nor in the wait list.”

The Court did not find any fault or error in the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the Original Application and Review Application.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition.