Inclusion in select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment.

The applicant, Suriya Prakash M, was a candidate included in the final eligibility list for the post of Assistant (Architectural Department) in CPWD under the SSC Phase XI/2023 selection post (Post Code SR15423)

There were 26 posts notified for this category, including 8 for OBC.

The applicant, belonging to the OBC category, was listed at Serial No. 159.

Four OBC posts remained vacant, and the list was set to expire by February 3, 2023.

The applicant contended that the 5th respondent (Staff Selection Commission) failed to fill these vacancies despite a cancellation list of advised candidates notified by the 1st respondent (Union of India, Central Public Works Department).

The applicant believed that if a reserve list were operated, he would have a chance to be appointed.

He argued that denying him consideration for appointment is arbitrary and illegal, especially since he successfully underwent the selection process and document verification.

A fresh requisition for vacancies was sent as early as December 10, 2015, highlighting gross negligence by the 5th respondent in making appointments from the reserve list for the 4 OBC vacancies.

The applicant asserted a legitimate expectation to be appointed given the available vacancies.

Whether the applicant is entitled to a direction compelling the respondents to consider his case for appointment to the post of Assistant (Architectural Department), or include him in the reserve list or final select list for the said post.

Whether the applicant, whose name is neither on the selection list nor the reserved list, has a right to be appointed merely because vacancies exist.

Whether the applicant has demonstrated that his exclusion was due to arbitrary, illegal, or mala fide actions by the selection committee.

The Tribunal applied the principle established by the Supreme Court of India that mere inclusion in a selection list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment (*Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India*, (1991) 3 SCC 47).

It recognized that while the State cannot act arbitrarily and must have bona fide reasons for not filling vacancies, it is not under a legal duty to fill all or any of the vacancies unless recruitment rules specify otherwise.

The Tribunal also relied on the principle that a candidate has only a right to be considered for appointment, not a legal right to be appointed (*Pitta Naveen Kumar v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti*, (2006) 10 SCC 261).

Furthermore, the Tribunal reiterated that selectees cannot claim appointment as a matter of right, and mere inclusion of a candidate's name in a list does not confer a right to selection, even if some vacancies remain unfilled (*State of U.P. And Others v. Rajkumar Sharma & Others*, (2006) 3 SCC 330).

The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's counsel's reliance on *Shankarsan Dash* regarding the State's arbitrary action but distinguished its applicability by noting that the applicant's name was "neither forming part of the selection list or in the reserved list".

It stressed that merely being found fit does not translate into an indefeasible right to appointment.

The Tribunal applied *Pitta Naveen Kumar* to affirm that the applicant had a right to be considered, not a right to be appointed, especially since his name was not on any relevant list.

It further reinforced this by citing *State of U.P. And Others v. Rajkumar Sharma & Others*, which holds that inclusion in a list does not confer a right to selection even if vacancies exist.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove that his exclusion was due to arbitrary, illegal, or mala fide actions by the selection committee, thereby not establishing a case for judicial intervention.

The arguments presented by the applicant were deemed insufficient to override the well-established legal precedents that distinguish between a right to be considered and a vested right to appointment.

The OA was dismissed at the admission stage itself.

The Tribunal, therefore, denied the applicant's request to be considered for appointment, or included in the reserve list or final select list, effectively affirming that he did not possess a legal right to appointment despite the existence of vacancies.