Inclusion in select list - No right to appointment

In Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCR 567 : (1991 AIR SCW 1583), a Constitution Bench had held that mere inclusion of the name in the list of selected candidates does not confer any right upon any candidate to be selected unless the relevant rules so indicate. In Babita Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 268, though the life of the panel was not prescribed, it was directed to be confined to a reasonable time. A long waiting list cannot be kept in infinitum in view of the principle "infinitum in jure reprobatur". A distinction can be made for the purpose of appointment between those who have already been appointed and those who are in the waiting list or had undergone training and waiting for appointment. It cannot be treated as arbitrary. It was  held that the panel was too long and was intended to last indefinitely barring the future generations for decades for being considered for the vacancies arising much later. In fact, the future generations would have been kept out for a very long period, if the panel would have been permitted to remain effective till it got exhausted. A panel of that type cannot be equated with a panel which is prepared having correlation to the existing vacancies or anticipated vacancies arising in the near future.

In Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh, (1993) 1 SCC 154 : (1992 AIR SCW 3263), it was held that a candidate whose name finds place in the select list for appointment to a civil post does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific rule entitling him for such appointment and he could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the Administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide or valid reason.

In Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur v. Vinod Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1987 SC 847, it was observed that the reason underlying the limitation of the period of life of waiting list for one year is obviously to ensure that other qualified persons are not deprived of their chances of applying for the posts in the succeeding years and being selected for appointment.

In State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Narwaha, (1974) 1 SCR 165 : (AIR 1973 SC 2216), this Court had held that though vacancies were existing selected candidates had no right to the appointment. It would be open to the Government not to appoint the candidates from the list for valid reasons.

In State of Bihar v. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986, (1994) 1 SCC 126 : (1994 Lab IC 573), the Supreme Court had held that a person having been selected, does not, on account of being empanelled alone, acquire any indefeasible right to appointment. Empanelment is, at the best, a condition of eligibility for purposes of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or creating right to be appointed unless relevant rules state to the contrary. In that case, select list was prepared on the basis of merit in the examination without any qualifying marks. All the persons who wrote the examination were ranked in the merit list. They claimed the right to get appointment contending that till the list was exhausted, no fresh list could be prepared and that they were entitled to the appointment. The conteition was negatived and it was held that there is no provision in the relevant rules giving indefeasible right to the persons whose names appeared in the list to get appointed. There is no provision under the Rules prohibiting authorities to fix the time limit.

In Dr. M. A. Haque v. Union ofIndia, (1993) 2 SCC 213, the Supreme  Court held that recruitment rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution have to be followed strictly and not in its breach. If disregard of the rules and the by passing of the Public Service Commissions are permitted, it will be open a backdoor for illegal recruitment without limit. Recruitment rules should be strictly followed and the Public Service Commission cannot keep the rules in cold storage. It was, therefore, held relying on the above ratio that since existing list was closed and recruitment was made through Public Service Commission, the petitioner has no right to that post.

All above decisions were considered and followed in N. Mohanan v. State of Kerala AIR 1997 SC1896 and it was held that mere inclusion of name in list of selected candidates  does not confer any right on candidate to be appointed.       The Supreme court rejected the plea of petitioner that existing vacancies should be filed up from the select list .