Supreme Court

Commissioner of Police and Anr Vs. Umesh Kumar

MANU/SC/0741/2020

07.10.2020

Service

Mere inclusion of candidate in a selection list does not confer upon them a vested right to appointment

In facts of present case, on 27 January 2013, a notice was published in the newspapers for filling up 523 vacancies for the post of ‘Constable (Executive) – Male’ in the Delhi Police. The Respondents to the present Civil Appeals were declared as selected from the OBC category in the revised result. Appeals are against impugned order of High Court issuing a mandamus to the Appellants to appoint the Respondents on the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police.

Learned Additional Solicitor General has assailed the correctness of the judgment of the Delhi High Court. The learned ASG submitted that, the process of re-evaluation of the first result was necessitated following the receipt of complaints and the filing of OAs before the Tribunal. Further, the revision of result has taken place in accordance with due process by applying the same yardstick to all candidates. Admittedly, the Respondents have thereafter failed to secure marks above the cut-off for the OBC category. 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.

In Punjab SEB vs. Malkiat Singh, present Court held that the mere inclusion of candidate in a selection list does not confer upon them a vested right to appointment. In the present case, after the name of respondents appeared in the results declared on 17 July 2015, the process of recruitment was put in abeyance since the results were challenged before the Tribunal. The process of revising the results during the course of the recruitment was necessitated to align it in accordance with law. An Expert Committee was specifically appointed following the institution of proceedings before the Tribunal. The report of the Expert Committee established errors in the 15 answer key, and thereafter a conscious decision was taken, after evaluating the report, to revise the results on 1 February 2016. In the fresh list, which was drawn up, both the respondents have admittedly failed to fulfil the cut-off for the OBC category to which they belong.

In regard to Respondent Umesh Kumar, it is also brought to attention that he resigned from the RPF on 16 August 2015 and his resignation was accepted on 25 August 2015. Evidently, the Respondent tendered his resignation without any justification when the recruitment process had not been concluded and even before an offer of appointment was made to him. In any event, it would have been open to him seek re-enlistment in the RPF at the material time which he chose to not do.

The High Court has been manifestly in error in issuing a mandamus to the Appellants to appoint the respondents on the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police. The direction was clearly contrary to law. The Respondents have participated in the selection process and upon the declaration of the revised result, it has emerged before the Court that, they have failed to obtain marks above the cut-off for the OBC category to which they belong. The judgments of the High Court are set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : Appointment Direction Legality

Share :