News Ticker

Kulwinder Pal Singh Etc. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors, on 12th May 2016, Supreme Court of India: Case Brief – Read Judgement

Merely getting names in the select list, indefeasible right to get an appointment, would not be created, SC says
Civil Appeal Nos. 5035- 5036 of 2016
Bench: Chief Justice of India T. S. Thakur; Justice R. Banumathi

Case Brief: The present appeals were arising out of the common judgement made by the High Court, whereby that court had dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the appellants here cannot claim any legal right in respect of the posts remained unfilled as the select list stood exhausted with the joining of the candidates to the extent of posts advertised. In the facts of the case, an advertisement for the filling of the several posts was issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission for Judicial Branch. From amongst the selected candidates, three belonging to the general category, placed at S1. No. 1, 5 and 32 did not join the service. However, the appellants here were also figured in the final merit list as they stood at S1. 37 and 36 and one- Parminder at S1. No. 35, as the aforesaid three candidates did not join service, the appellants submitted the representation to the High Court for issuance of appointment orders to them. The Administrative Committee meeting decided that the appellants cannot be offered appointments due to lack of vacancies. In this meeting the Committee took the note of the decision of the Supreme Court, which has earlier appointed sixteen temporary posts while deciding Sidhu Scam, which was to be adjusted against the future retirements, vacancies or promotions, etc. As such, the Committee observed that the three resultant vacancies of concerned year stood consumed with the joining of seventeen candidates in connection with the Sidhu Scam.

The Writ Petitions of appellants filed before the High Court, dismissed by that court. Parminder’s petition was also dismissed, all three preferred these appeals before this bench. This bench found that the there were 27 posts of general category against which all twenty seven candidates were selected and from de- reserved eight posts, seven posts were filled by general category, as such total 34 posts were occupied, however, when three candidates did not joined, then there were 31 general category candidates which were seen joined and working. Bench further pointed that there is a fairly well- settled law that merely because the name of a candidate finds place in the select list, it would not give him indefeasible right to get an appointment as well. Also, this bench observed that the high Court was right in its finding fault with the de- reservation of the seven posts which were filled by candidates belonging to the general category. Moreover, the bench find correctness in the decision of the high court and decided not to interfere with the same, as such the appeals were dismissed.

 Read the Judgements: Kulwinder Pal Singh Etc. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors

Leave a Reply