Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SRI SANJOY BHATTACHARJEE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/03/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
This special leave petition has been filed against an
order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, made on July
8, 1996 made in O.A No. 879/93.
Admittedly, the petitioner, having acquired Diploma in
Engineering, had applied for and stood selected as
Technician. The vacancies notified were 480. His ranking on
merit is 779. Since he was not appointed to the post, he
filed the D.A in the Tribunal. It was contended that while
he was looking for ward to his appointment in accordance
with the selection, instead of making the appointment the
authorities issued notification for fresh recruitment, thus
, defeating the right of the petitioner and others similarly
situated. Therefore, direction to the respondent authorities
to appoint him, as per his ranking in the select list for
the year 1989 was sought. stay of fresh recruitment till the
said list got exhausted, was also sought. The Tribunal has
dismissed the petition holding that mere putting a candidate
in the select list does not confer on him any right to
appointment. Selection was made only for filling up 480
vacancies; after the absorption thereof, selection has to
be made for the subsequent vacancies from the open market
and,. therefore, directions sought could not be given. We
find that the reasons given . We find that the reasons given
by the Tribunal are well justified. Merely because the
petitioner has been put in the waiting list, he does not get
any vested right to an appointment. It is not his case that
any one below his ranking in the waiting list has been
appointed which could give him cause for grievance. Thus, he
cannot seek any direction for his appointment.
For subsequent vacancies, every one in the open market
is entitled to apply for consideration of his/her claim on
merit in accordance with law and it would be consistent with
the provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
Therefore, direction sought for not to fill up the vacancies
having arisen subsequently until the candidates in the
waiting list are exhausted, cannot be granted. The Tribunal
rightly refused to grant any such direction.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2