SERVICE LAW — Recruitment — Select List — No indefeasible right to appointment
Para 9, 10, 17
Inclusion in select list — Whether confers right to appointment — Held, No — Select list only confers eligibility — Appointment must be strictly in accordance with statutory rules — No vested or enforceable right arises unless rules so provide.
RECRUITMENT RULES — Operation of select list — Scope and limitation
Para 7, 8, 19
Select list prepared equal to notified vacancies — Not an open-ended reservoir — Cannot be operated beyond notified vacancies — Absence of provision for waiting list/reserve list bars further operation of list.
VACANCY — Non-joining of selected candidate — Effect
Para 10, 12, 15, 19
Non-joining or failure to complete pre-appointment formalities — Does not entitle next candidate to automatic appointment — In absence of enabling provision, vacancy to be treated as fresh vacancy.
RECRUITMENT — Preference system — Effect on selection
Para 6, 13, 16
Selection based on service-wise preference — Allocation not linear — Cannot shift candidate to another post after process concludes — Post facto adjustment impermissible.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Mandamus — When not grantable
Para 14
Where entitlement is uncertain or dependent on interpretation of rules — Mandamus cannot be issued — Court cannot create right not contemplated by statute.
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION — Recruitment Rules — Strict adherence
Para 6, 8, 19
Recruitment must strictly conform to governing rules — Courts cannot expand scope of rules to create additional rights — Absence of provision is decisive.
VALIDATION ACT — Finality of selection process
Para 18
Legislative validation of selection — Indicates intent to give finality to recruitment — Reopening process contrary to statutory scheme impermissible.
RESULT
Para 20–22
Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Tribunal order restored — Respondent not entitled to appointment.
No comments:
Post a Comment