Candidate In Final Selection List Does Not Have An Indefeasible Right To Appointment : Delhi High Court Reiterates
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Dr. Shashi Bhushan Vs. University of Delhi has held that a candidate even in the final selection list does not have an indefeasible right to appointment. Background Facts Dr. Shashi Bhushan (Petitioner) participated in the recruitment process for the post...
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Dr. Shashi Bhushan Vs. University of Delhi has held that a candidate even in the final selection list does not have an indefeasible right to appointment.
Background Facts
Dr. Shashi Bhushan (Petitioner) participated in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography, Kalindi College, University of Delhi (Respondent). The Petitioner was the first candidate in the waitlist. Ms. Usha Rani was at Serial No. 1 in the list of selected candidates and she joined the aforesaid post. However, she later resigned from the aforesaid post to join another college and thus the aforesaid post fell vacant. Since the Petitioner was not offered the vacant post even after being Waitlist Candidate No. 1, the writ petition was filed.
It was contended by the Petitioner that Respondent is under an obligation to fill up the vacant posts by calling candidates from the waitlist.
On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondent that as per a communication dated 03.04.2024 issued by University of Delhi, if a candidate joins the post and later resigns, it would mandate issuance of fresh advertisement for such vacant post after following due process and procedures.
Findings of the Court
The court observed that that the communication dated 03.04.2024 was issued following the ratio laid down in the case of Sudesh Kumar Goyal vs. State of Haryana & Ors wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that if one of the selected candidates joins and then resigns, it gives rise to a fresh vacancy which could not be filled up without issuing a proper advertisement and following the fresh selection process.
The court further observed that no candidate even in the final selection list has an indefeasible right to appointment. The only right available is the right to be considered for being appointed. The court relied on the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post.
The court further observed that a mandamus cannot be issued to direct the Government or the State to fill up certain vacancies. A selected candidate in the final selection list does not have a right more than the right of consideration but a candidate in waitlist does not even have the right of consideration.
With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition was dismissed.
Case No.- W.P.(C) 4949/2024 & CM APPL. 20278/2024
Case Name- Dr. Shashi Bhushan Vs. University of Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 542
Counsel for the Petitioner- Mr. Abhik Chimni
Counsel for Respondent- Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal and Mr. Hardik Rupal,