The Supreme Court has reiterated the settled legal position that a candidate whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right to appointment in the absence of a specific rule entitling such appointment. The Court held that neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement required publication of marks obtained by all candidates who appeared in the written examination.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court directing appointment of the respondents to the post of Plant Attendant. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, and noting that Respondent No. 1 alone had pursued the litigation since 2008, the Court directed the appellants to pay Rs. 5 lakhs to Respondent No. 1 within two months.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that merely because the respondents were not shown to have failed, no inference could be drawn that they had passed the written examination. There was no material on record indicating that the respondents had cleared the written test.
The Bench further observed that since neither the rules nor the advertisement prescribed the duration for which records were to be preserved, the appellants’ explanation that records were unavailable or destroyed was held to be bona fide. Mere non-production of records does not justify drawing an adverse inference that the respondents had cleared the written test.
The respondents had originally sought only a direction to call for results of 56 selected candidates and had not sought appointment for themselves, an additional reason why a direction for appointment could not be granted, added the Bench, while pointing out that the qualifications for the post of Plant Attendant were revised in 2008, and therefore the appellants could not be directed to appoint the respondents.
Briefly, the Appellant No. 1 is Durgapur Steel Plant, one of five integrated steel plants of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), and a Central Government Public Sector Enterprise. An advertisement dated Oct 16, 2007 was issued for recruitment to the post of Plant Attendant-cum-Junior Technician (Plant Attendant). The number of posts was initially 90, subsequently increased to 150, and then to 200.
The selection process comprised a written examination, interview, and medical examination. The written examination was outsourced to an independent agency. Approximately 52,000 applications were received; 29,459 candidates appeared in the examination held on March 23, 2008, of whom 1,530 qualified. A merit list of shortlisted candidates was published on June 17, 2008, and appointment offers were issued to 150 candidates, of whom 139 joined. Subsequently, 55 more candidates were offered appointments due to additional vacancies, resulting in a total of 194 candidates joining service.
In January 2009, the respondents filed a writ petition seeking production of written examination results, disclosure of their marks, and restraint on issuance of appointment orders. A second writ petition challenged a subsequent advertisement dated March 04, 2010 for Junior Technician/Operator posts.
Both petitions were transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Calcutta Bench, which held that marks of the written test were neither produced before the Tribunal nor disclosed to the respondents. Despite pendency of the writ petitions, records were not preserved after finalisation of appointments of 194 candidates. There was no documentary evidence to establish that the respondents had failed in the examination. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the appellants to offer appointments to the respondents to the post of Plant Attendant or an equivalent post with suitable age relaxation within 16 weeks, with the respondents to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list and benefits to be prospective only.
The matter then reached the High Court, which directed Appellant No. 2 to assess the candidature of the respondents and place the result before it. Later, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal’s order.
Appearances:
Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR, Rashika Swarup, Adv., and Naman Jain, Adv., for Appellants
Subhasish Bhowmick, AOR, Manisha Pandey, Adv., Suraj Kumar Singh, Adv., Reegan S Bel, Adv., Rahul Kushwaha, Adv., Ashutosh Singh, Adv., and Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, Adv., for Respondents
