Mere Inclusion Of Candidate In A Selection List Does Not Confer Upon Them A Vested Right To Appointment, Reiterates SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court has reiterated that mere inclusion of candidate in a selection list does not confer upon them a vested right to appointment.

In this case, the candidates participated in the selection process to the 2013 batch of Constables (Executive) – Male in Delhi Police. They were declared to have been successful in the first result. The results were revised later and they were ousted. The candidates approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which dismissed their OA. This order was challenged before the Delhi High Court, which directed the appointment.

In appeal, the court noted that the revised result was declared even before offers of appointment were made to them since the entire process of recruitment had been put in abeyance. The bench observed that, the High Court was manifestly in error in issuing a mandamus to appoint the respondents on the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police. The court observed:

" The real issue, however, is whether the respondents were entitled to a writ of mandamus. This would depend on whether they have a vested right of appointment. Clearly the answer to this must be in the negative. In Punjab SEB vs. Malkiat Singh, this Court held that the mere inclusion of candidate in a selection list does not confer upon them a vested right to appointment."

Taking note of the fact that, the results had to be revised due to some irregularity that crept in while preparing answer keys, the bench said:

Such irregularities have become a bane of the public recruitment process at various levels resulting in litigation across the country before the Tribunals, the High Courts and ultimately this Court as well. Much of the litigation and delay in carrying out public recruitment would be obviated if those entrusted with the duty to do so carry it out with a sense of diligence and responsibility.

Click here to Read/Download Order

Read Judgment