APEX COURT HELD THAT
Service Law — Recruitment Process — Select List — Inclusion in select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment.
The Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle that a candidate whose name appears in a select list does not acquire any indefeasible or vested right to appointment unless the governing rules specifically confer such entitlement. Recruitment by the State or its instrumentalities must conform to comparative merit and equality principles under Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 13)
Service Law — Recruitment — Non-disclosure of marks of all candidates — Whether vitiates selection process — Held, no, in absence of statutory or advertisement requirement.
The Court held that where neither the recruitment rules nor the recruitment advertisement required publication or disclosure of marks obtained by all candidates appearing in the written examination, non-disclosure of such marks could not by itself invalidate the recruitment process. The respondents failed to establish that they had qualified in the written examination and mere non-disclosure of marks was insufficient to infer arbitrariness. (Paras 14, 15)
Evidence — Adverse inference — Non-production/destruction of recruitment records — Whether presumption can be drawn that candidates had qualified — Held, no.
The Supreme Court held that mere non-production or destruction of recruitment records does not automatically justify drawing an adverse inference that unsuccessful candidates had cleared the examination. Since the recruitment process had been conducted through an independent agency and no rule prescribed the duration for preservation of records, the explanation offered for non-availability of records was accepted as bona fide. (Para 15)
Service Law — Recruitment — Burden to establish successful qualification — Candidate cannot rely merely on absence of declaration of failure.
The Court held that the respondents had not pleaded or proved that they had passed the written examination. Merely because the authorities had not specifically declared them unsuccessful, no legal inference could be drawn that they had qualified in the recruitment process. (Para 14)
Constitution of India — Article 14 — Recruitment process — Transparency in selection — Scope.
The Supreme Court observed that the State and its instrumentalities are obligated to ensure fairness and adherence to comparative merit while making appointments. However, absence of disclosure of cut-off marks or evaluation criteria does not automatically render the recruitment process unconstitutional where no such requirement exists under the governing rules or advertisement. (Paras 10, 13, 14)
Service Law — Relief beyond pleadings — Appointment cannot be granted where no such relief originally sought.
The Court noted that in the original writ petitions the respondents had merely sought disclosure of results and records relating to selected candidates and had not sought appointment to the post for themselves. Consequently, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in directing appointments to the respondents. (Para 16)
Service Law — Change in qualification criteria during intervening period — Effect on grant of relief.
The Supreme Court held that since the qualifications prescribed for the post of Plant Attendant had been revised in the year 2008, it was not feasible to direct appointment of the respondents at a later stage pursuant to litigation arising from the earlier recruitment process. (Paras 9, 16)
Administrative Law — Equitable compensation despite denial of appointment — Litigation pursued for prolonged period.
Though setting aside the directions for appointment, the Supreme Court, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and the fact that Respondent No.1 alone had continued to pursue litigation since 2008, directed payment of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to Respondent No.1 within two months. (Para 17)
Result — Appeals partly allowed — Directions for appointment set aside — Compensation awarded to one respondent.
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and High Court directing appointment of the respondents to the post of Plant Attendant, while directing payment of Rs.5 lakhs compensation to Respondent No.1. (Paras 17, 18, 19)
