Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus G RAMESH on 9 January 2020
476
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
A
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
v.
G RAMESH
(Civil Appeal No. 140 Of 2020)
BJANUARY 09, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDHRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment – 2013 notification inviting ap-plications for conducting departmental examination to the cadre ofCpostman – Candidate selected and duly appointed, but was laterdismissed from service for having obtained selection by fraudulentmeans – Respondent, second in the order of merit, made represen-tation in terms of the direction passed on his Original Application(OA) filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, HyderabadD– Representation rejected – On being moved afresh, the Tribunalheld that upon the dismissal of the candidate who was selected andappointed, the respondent had right to be appointed as postman–Order affirmed by the High Court while dismissing the writ petitionof the appellants – On appeal, held: Once a candidate had beenselected upon the conclusion of the selection process and was ap-Epointed to the post, the Select List stood exhausted – There was onevacancy – Subsequent dismissal from service of the appointed can-didate in 2016 would not either revive the Select List or result in theappointment of the respondent – Impugned order of the High Courtset aside – Consequently, the OA filed by the respondent seekingFappointment to the post of postman also stands dismissed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD 1.1 Once a candidate had been selected upon theconclusion of the selection process and was appointed to the post,the Select List stood exhausted. There was one vacancy. TheGsubsequent dismissal from service of the appointed candidate in2016 would not either revive the Select List or result in theappointment of the respondent. The impugned judgment andorder of the High Court is set aside. In consequence, the Original Application filed by the respondent seeking appointment to thepost of postman shall stand dismissed. [Paras 7, 9][479-A, D]
Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited v DelsonDavis P 2002 (2) SLR 410:2002( 2 ) JT 329 – reliedon.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 140 of2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.02.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and the State ofAndhra Pradesh in W.P. No.530 of 2018.
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Nachiketa Joshi, Ms. Awantika Manohar,Pranay Sanjana, Siddhartha Sinha, Dr. D.V. Rao, Gurmeet Singh Makker,Advs. for the Appellants.
M. Venkanna, M.V. Krishna Mohan, K. Maruthi Rao,Mrs. K. Radha, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
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.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a DivisionBench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States ofTelangana and Andhra Pradesh dated 8 February 2018.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Hanamkonda issued anotification on 4 November 2013 inviting applications for conducting adepartmental examination to the cadre of postman. The result of theexamination was declared on 20 December 2013. A candidate by thename of G Vijender was declared to be selected and was posted as apostman. The respondent was second in the order of merit in the SelectList. Upon receiving a complaint that G Vijender had obtained selectionby adopting fraudulent means, the employee was placed under suspensionon 24 January 2014. The respondent moved the Central AdministrativeTribunal[1] at Hyderabad seeking a direction for being posted in place ofG Vijender. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application as premature.
1 Tribunal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1 Tribunal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
AG Vijender was dismissed from service after a departmental enquiry on29 April 2016. The respondent filed an Original Application before theTribunal in which an order was passed on 25 November 2016 to considerhis request in accordance with the rules. Following this order, therepresentation of the respondent to appoint him as a postman wasrejected, upon which he moved the Tribunal afresh. The Tribunal, by itsBorder dated 9 November 2017, came to the conclusion that the respondenthad a right to be appointed to the post of postman and that upon thedismissal of the candidate who had been duly selected and appointed,the respondent ought to be appointed. This order of the Tribunal hasbeen affirmed by the High Court while dismissing a writ petition filed byCthe appellants.
5. Mr Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General hasrelied upon a decision of a two-judge Bench of this Court in ThrissurDistrict Co-operative Bank Limited v Delson Davis P[2]. TheAdditional Solicitor General submitted that once the process of selectionDhad been completed with the appointment of G Vijender, the Select Liststood exhausted. Hence, the subsequent dismissal of the appointedcandidate from service would not result in the revival of the Select List.Hence, it was urged that both the Tribunal and the High Court haveerred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent had a vested rightto appointment.E
6. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the respondentby Mr M Venkanna, learned counsel, that the candidate who had beenappointed had secured his appointment through fraudulent means and,hence, the appointment was void ab initio. Learned counsel submittedthat it was, strictly speaking, not necessary for the Department to hold aFdepartmental enquiry and a simple order of termination with a notice toshow cause would have sufficed. Hence, it was urged that it was therespondent, who was second in the order of merit, who should havebeen appointed.
7. The facts, as they have emerged on record indicate that theGselection process which was initiated in pursuance of the notificationdated 4 November 2013 culminated in the order of appointment of GVijender. Subsequently, his services came to be terminated following theorder of dismissal upon the conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry. Once2 2002 (2) SLR 410H
a candidate had been selected upon the conclusion of the selection processand was appointed to the post, the Select List stood exhausted. Therewas one vacancy. The subsequent dismissal from service of the appointedcandidate in 2016 would not either revive the Select List or result in theappointment of the respondent.
8. This principle emerges from the judgment of this Court inThrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited where it was held:
“When once the selection process is complete and appointmenthad been made, that process comes to an end and if any vacancyarises on the appointee having joined the post leaves the same, itmust be treated as a fresh vacancy and fresh steps in accordancewith the appropriate rules should be taken. This view is fortifiedby the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Raghubir ChandSharma and Anr. [JT 2001 (9) SC 266]”
9. Adopting the above view, we have come to the conclusion thatthe impugned orders of the Tribunal and the High Court cannot besustained. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugnedjudgment and order of the High Court dated 8 February 2018. Inconsequence, the Original Application filed by the respondent seekingappointment to the post of postman shall stand dismissed. There shall beno order as to costs.
Divya Pandey
Appeal allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H