Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 583 (MP)

Irfan Beg v. Union of India

2018-07-04

MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR, R.S.JHA

body2018
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 5.10.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench in Original Application No. 532/2013 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner. 2. The petition has also prayed for a direction to the respondent/authorities to declare the result of the selection of the two posts in Group-C against Scouts and Guide quota for the year 2010-2011. It is submitted that pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents inviting applications on 27.11.2010, the petitioner had applied for the aforesaid post and thereafter appeared in the written examination and was placed at Sr. No. 1 in the merit list of the written examination, result of which was declared on 19.3.2011. It is submitted that the petitioner also appeared in the viva-voce on 29.3.2011, however, the result of the selection was not notified by the respondents, hence he had approached the Tribunal for the relief as stated above. 3. It is submitted that the tribunal, by taking into consideration the stand of the respondent that on account of the fact that the competent authority had 2 not given its approval to the selection process by 31.3.2011, therefore, the entire selection process was cancelled, has dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the entire selection process that was placed by the respondents on record there is nothing to indicate that the selection process was required to be completed by 31.3.2011 or had to be approved by the competent authority. It is submitted that in the absence of such a clause in the selection process, the Tribunal has committed perversity and patent illegality in the impugned order in dismissing the O.A filed by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, submits that the circular itself clearly states that the post of Group-C under the Scouts and Guide quota has to be filled up annually and as per the practice prevailing in the establishment of the respondents, the annual year commences from 1st of April and ends on 31st of March of the next year. It is submitted that the viva voce, in the instant case, took place on 29.3.2011, i.e. just two days before the lapse of the annual year and in such circumstances, the competent authority refused to grant its approval for the same or issue appointments for that annual year as a result of which the entire selection process was cancelled. 6. It is submitted that mere inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the merit list does not confer any right upon the petitioner to claim mandamus from this Court 3 for appointment. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, [ (1991) 3 SCC 47 ]. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Having perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the law in this regard to the effect that mere inclusion in the select list or being placed at serial No. 1 does not confer any indeficiable or vested right to an individual to seek appointment. 9. We are also of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly held that the recruitment was required to be completed by 31.3.2011 in terms of the Government of India, Ministry of Railway, circular dated 4.5.2000 governing recruitment against Scouts and Guide quota as the circular states that the recruitment against the said quota has to be completed annually. It is also apparent from the return filed by the respondents before the tribunal that they have taken a specific stand to the effect that as the process was not completed prior to 31.3.2011, the competent authority did not grant approval to the same and, therefore, it was cancelled. 10. It is also apparent from the return filed by the respondents before the tribunal that they have taken a specific stand to the effect that as the process was not completed prior to 31.3.2011, the competent authority did not grant approval to the same and, therefore, it was cancelled. 10. In such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the original application by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash (supra), moreso, as we are also of the considered opinion that mere inclusion in 4 the select list does not confer any right, indeficiable or vested, on an individual to claim a mandamus for being appointed and it is for the authority to decide as to whether it wishes to proceed any further in the matter provided that the decision of the authority is based on cogent reasons as in the instant case. 11. In such circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner, being meritless is accordingly dismissed.