Mere Empanelment Does Not Create Any Indefeasible Right To Appointment: SC [Read Judgment]
The employer also has the discretion not to fill up all requisitioned vacancies, but which has to be for valid and germane reasons not afflicted by arbitrariness
The Supreme Court has reiterated that mere existence of vacancies or empanelment does not create any indefeasible right to appointment. While allowing a batch of appeals against a Kerala High court order (KSRTC vs. Akhilesh VS), the bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha observed that the employer has the discretion not to fill up all requisitioned vacancies,...
The Supreme Court has reiterated that mere existence of vacancies or empanelment does not create any indefeasible right to appointment.
While allowing a batch of appeals against a Kerala High court order (KSRTC vs. Akhilesh VS), the bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha observed that the employer has the discretion not to fill up all requisitioned vacancies, but which has to be for valid and germane reasons not afflicted by arbitrariness.
The High Court, in these cases, had held that the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation was obliged to make appointments against requisitioned vacancies including those that may have arisen subsequently, but during the life of the rank list. It had also directed the corporation to make appointments against 97 vacancies on the post of Blacksmith Grade II.
Before the Apex court, the Corporation challenged the High Court order on the ground that it could not make any further appointments due to a financial crunch and a skewed bus to passenger ratio, and for which purpose it had also appointed a committee to recommend remedial measures.
The bench considered the issue whether mere empanelment can justify a mandamus to make appointments because vacancies may exist. Also, whether mandamus can be issued to make appointments from the panel on vacancies which may have arisen subsequently due to superannuation etc. during the life of the rank list.
Allowing the appeals, the bench said that the High Court has erred in issuance of mandamus to fill up a total of 97 vacancies, including those arising subsequently but during the life of the rank list. Referring to Kulwinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, the bench said:
"Vacancies which may have arisen subsequently could not be clubbed with the earlier requisition and necessarily had to be part of another selection process. The law stands settled that mere existence of vacancies or empanelment does not create any indefeasible right to appointment. The employer also has the discretion not to fill up all requisitioned vacancies, but which has to be for valid and germane reasons not afflicted by arbitrariness. The appellant contends a financial crunch along with a skewed staff/bus ratio which are definitely valid and genuine grounds for not making further appointments. The court cannot substitute its views over that of the appellant, much less issue a mandamus imposing obligations on the appellant corporation which it is unable to meet."
Read Judgment