The Supreme Court ruled that a candidate who has applied does not have a legal right to insist that the recruitment process set in motion be carried to its logical end.
The facts of the case reveal that respondent Dr. Vinay Kumar who is working as Assistant Professor in the department of Dentistry came up before the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming appointment to the post of Associate Professor. It was stated in the Original Application that the advertisement was issued by respondent Corporation inviting online application for the post of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor for its 8 PGIMSR/Medical/Dental Colleges. The post of Dentistry was reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidate.
The appellants pointed out that the advertisement was issued on 01.03.2018 but it was put on hold on 21.03.2018. First respondent applied only on 31.03.2018 after the advertisement was put on hold. On account of certain developments which took place, there may really be no need to fill up the post of Associate Professor and the first respondent may not have a right as such.
Advocate Shailesh Madiyal, appearing for the first respondent, contended that the only case set up by the appellants was that direct recruitment could not be resorted to when there is somebody available for being promoted.
The division bench of Justice K.M. JOSEPH and Justice HRISHIKESH ROY in this case, noted that the vacancy in question viz., the vacancy reserved for members of the Scheduled Caste community could not be said to be available for promotion by mere reason that it was filled up by promotion by reason of the fact that the fourth respondent was given the benefit of Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP). It is only a form of certain financial benefits and it is not vacancy based. In other words, the ground raised by the appellants for not proceeding with the procedure of direct recruitment is untenable.
The court said that the cardinal principle is that this is a case of direct recruitment. A candidate who has applied does not have a legal right to insist that the recruitment process set in motion be carried to its logical end. Even inclusion of a candidate in the select list may not clothe the candidate with such a right.
The court further added that as the very advertisement was put on hold, it is quite likely that any candidate who may have been desirous of applying, may not have applied being discouraged by the fact that the advertisement has been put on hold. Therefore, the direction to conclude the proceedings within 45 days is unsupportable.
The court set aside the judgment and directed the appellants to take a decision bearing in mind all relevant aspects within a period of two months and if it is decided to fill up the post in question, the needful shall be done within such time so that all interested parties may apply pursuant thereto.
The court made it clear that the ground as such taken that since direct recruitment could be resorted to only if there is nobody to be promoted and the vacancy stands filled up by granting of benefits to the fourth respondent under the DACP, will not be available to the appellant. In other words, the vacancy as such would be treated is available for direct recruitment for scheduled castes.
Case title: Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr. v/s Dr. Vinay Kumar & Ors.
Citation: Civil appeal no. 4150 of 2022