Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2052 (RAJ)

Bhanru Lal v. The State of Rajasthan

2015-12-09

AJIT SINGH, ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant had applied for the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade II (hereinafter referred to as PTI Grade II) for the year 2003-04 in response to the advertisement dated 21.08.2003. Before the appellant could appear in the interview, the selection process was kept in abeyance by the respondents. The appellant had filed writ petition for a direction to the respondents to complete the process of appointment to the post of Physical Teacher Grade II and to issue an appointment letter to him. Tire petition was dismissed by the Single Bench vide order dated 09.12.2014 which is impugned in the instant special appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the selection process for the post of PTI Grade II for the year 2003-04 had been arbitrarily kept in abeyance by the respondents thereby seriously jeopardising the right of appointment of the appellant. He has further submitted that the action of the respondents in not completing the recruitment process is not bona fide and no reasons have been spelt out in the order dated 30.12.2006 which should have been set aside by the Single Bench. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon judgment of die Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., reported as 1978(1) SCC 405 . 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. It is apparent that the appellant had applied for appointment to the post of PTI Grade II but even before the process of selection could be completed or the merit list prepared, the entire selection was kept in abeyance vide order dated 30.12.2006. The respondents, in their reply to the writ petition, have submitted that earlier advertisement for filling up 57 posts of Physical Teacher Grade II against the vacancies for the year 1998-99 had been issued and even the selection process was over but they had to make 73 additional appointments against 57 advertised posts for the vacancies of the year 1998-99 in compliance of various orders issued by the Court. In case they had completed the process of selection in question for 64 posts, they would not have been able to comply with the orders of the Court. In case they had completed the process of selection in question for 64 posts, they would not have been able to comply with the orders of the Court. It is also stated that in the meantime, the respondents had decided to conduct the process of recruitment through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'RPSC') and the recruitment for the posts of PTI Grade II and III has already been conducted by the RPSC vide advertisement dated 09.09.2008 for filling the backlog for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category. The RPSC had even issued advertisement in the year 2012 for recruitment to the posts of FIT Grade II and III. 5. It is also evident from the perusal of the reply that the selection process to make appointments on 57 vacancies of PTI Grade II relating to the year 1998-99 was subject matter of challenge before this Court and in compliance of the order of the Court, the department vide order dated 30.12.2006 stayed the process of appointment to 57 posts against the vacancies for the year 2003-04. The Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.381/2007 (Durgesh Singh Khinchi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and six other special appeals vide order dated 20.02.2011 had observed that 73 additional appointments had been made from time to time in different divisions while only 57 vacancies were advertised and in all 134 appointments had been made. 6. In such a factual backdrop, it is borne out that the action of the respondents in not completing the selection process for the year 2003-04 cannot be said to be arbitrary which would warrant any interference by the Court. It is well settled that even selected candidate has no right to seek appointment and the Court has only to consider whether the action of the respondents not appointing the selected candidates is bona fide. In the instant case, the appellant had only participated at the first stage of examination and is not even a person who has been selected so as to plead prejudice to his rights. In the instant case, the appellant had only participated at the first stage of examination and is not even a person who has been selected so as to plead prejudice to his rights. We draw support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and Others reported in (1993) 1 SCC 154 , wherein it has been held that a candidate who finds place in the select list does not have an indefeasible right to be appointed to the post and he could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the appointing authority does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons. The candidates in the select list do not have any right even to be heard before cancellation of the list provided it is bona fide or for valid reasons. 7. In the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Tarun K. Singh and Ors., (2003)11 SCC 768 , the Supreme Court has held that an individual applicant for any particular post does not get a right to be enforced by a mandamus until and unless he is selected in the process of selection and gets the letter of appointment. 8. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), cited by the counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the instant case. The issue which had arisen therein was the validity of the order of the Election Commission cancelling the poll due to malpractices and directing a repoll in a parliamentary constituency. It was held therein that when statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity may be judged by reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit. There is no denial of the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in this case but the appellant cannot derive any benefit therefrom. 9. The action of the respondents in not completing the recruitment is bona fide and is also discernible from the record contemporaneously maintained. It was because of the orders of the Court that they could not complete the selection process as excess appointments had been made against the recruitment in the previous years. 10. We may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in tire case of East Coast Railway and Anr. It was because of the orders of the Court that they could not complete the selection process as excess appointments had been made against the recruitment in the previous years. 10. We may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in tire case of East Coast Railway and Anr. v. Mahadev Appa Rao and Ors,. reported in (2010)7 SCC 678 , wherein while dealing with the question of cancellation of examination, it was held that the order passed by the public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making the order which may be evident from the order itself or from the record contemporaneously maintained. In that case, the order cancelling typing test was set aside as neither any reasons were set out therein nor were such reasons forthcoming in any contemporaneous record or file. 11. We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the action of the respondents in not completing the recruitment process for the year 2003-04 was neither arbitrary, discriminatory nor illegal which would warrant any interference by the Court. Therefore, there is no manifest error or illegality in the order of the Single Bench.In the result, the appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******