Supreme Court of India
SRI SANJOY BHATTACHARJEE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. on 10 March 1997
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
1
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
SRI SANJOY BHATTACHARJEE v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
MARCH 10, 1997
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T'. NANAVATI, JJ.J
Service Law :
Selection---Candidate placed on waiting list--R.ight to appoint-ment-After filling up the notified vacancies from the select list Department C advertised the subsequent vacancies--<:andidate figuring 011 waiting list filed application be/ ore Tribunal for direction to make appointments from the waitmg list and stay of fresh recruitment till the said list got exhausted-Held, merely because the petitioner has been put in the waiting list, he does not get any vested right to an appointment-After filling up the notified vacancies from the select list, for subsequent vacancies everyone in the open market is D entitled to apply for consideration on merit in accordance with law-Constitu-tion of India, Articles 14 and 16(1).
. .
.
. . . CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6175 of 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.7.96 of the Central Ad-ministrative Tribunal, Calcutta in O.A. No 879 of 1993.
Sarla Chandra and Pradeep Mukherjee for the Petitioners.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
This special leave petition has been filed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, made on July 8, 1996 made in O.A. No. G 879/93.
Admittedly, the petitioner, having acquired Diploma in Engineering, had applied for and stood selected as Technician. The vacancies notified were 480. His ranking on merit is 779. Since he was not appointed to the post, he filed the O.A. in the Tribunal. It was contended that while he was H 915
A looking forward to his appointment in accordance with the selection: in-stead of making the appointment the authorities issued notification for fresh recruitment, thus, defeating the right of the petitioner and others similarly situated. Therefore, direction to the respondent-authorities to appoint him, as per his ranking in the select list for the year 1989 was B sought. Stay of fresh recruitment till the said list got exhausted, was also sought. The Tribunal has dismissed the petition holding that mere putting a candidate in the select list does not confer on him any right to appoint-ment. Selectio~ was made only for filling up 480 vacancies; after the absorption thereof, selection has to be made for the subsequent vacancies from the open market and, therefore, directions sought could not be given. C We find that the reason given by the Tribunal are well justified. Merely because the petitioner has been put in the waiting list, he does not get any vested right to an appointment. It is not his case that any one below his ranking in the waiting list has been appointed which could give him cause for grievance. Thus, he cannot seek any direction for his appointment.
D
D For subsequent vacancies, every 9ne in the open market is entitled to apply for consideration of his/her claim on merit in accordance with law and it would be consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, direction sought for not to fill up t:1e vacancies having arisen subsequently until the candidates in the waiting list are E exhausted, cannot be granted. The Tribunal rightly refused to grant any such direction.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
R.P.