38.6c New Delhi, India, Wednesday, April 17, 2024

Supreme Court reiterates that Mere Inclusion of a Person in the Selection List Does Not Confer Upon Them a Vested Right to Appointment [READ JUDGMENT]

By Lakshya Tewari      09 October, 2020 12:15 PM      0 Comments
Supreme Court reiterates Selection List

A bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banerjee of the apex court reiterated that the mere inclusion of candidate in a selection list does not confer upon them a vested right to appointment. In the current case, the candidate participated in the selection process to the 2013 batch of Constables (Executive)- in Delhi Police (male). When the results came out first, they were declared to successful in the first round but when revised results came, they were removed. 

They filed before Central Administrative Tribunal which dismissed their OA. They then reached the Delhi HC which ordered their respective appointments. The apex court said that the real issue was whether the HC was correct in issuing the writ of mandamus. The court noted the fact that the declaration of the revised result was done before the appointment letter since the entire process of recruitment had been put in abeyance. The bench said that the HC committed a grave error by issuing mandamus.  

The apex court also relied upon the case of Punjab SEB V. Malkait Singh (2005) 9 SCC 22 in which the court observed that the mere inclusion of candidates in a selection list does not confer upon them a vested right to appointment. The court also noted that the results were revised due to some irregularity and this has become damnation of recruitment and is ultimately resulting in litigation across the Indian Courts. 

The court further said that “For the above reasons, we are of the view that the judgments delivered by the Delhi High Court on 6 December 2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 10143 of 2017 and on 19 December 2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 13052 of 2018 do not comport with the law. The High Court has been manifestly in error in issuing a mandamus to the appellants to appoint the respondents on the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police. The direction was clearly contrary to law”. 

The apex court also told in its judgment that “The respondents have participated in the selection process and upon the declaration of the revised result, it has emerged before the Court that they have failed to obtain marks above the cut-off for the OBC category to which they belong. We accordingly allow the appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court dated 6 December 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.10143 of 2017 and 19 December 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.13052 of 2018. Both the Writ Petitions shall stand dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs”. The name of this current case is Commissioner of Police and Anr. Vs. Umesh Kumar. 



Share this article:

Leave a feedback about this

Trending Judiciary
Baba Ramdev, Acharya Balkrishna offer to make public apology in SC for misleading advertisements

Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna offer public apology in SC for misleading ads, court deliberates acceptance.

16 April, 2024 01:57 PM
Trending Judiciary
Non-tear of the hymen is of no consequence in cases of penetrative sexual assault: Guwahati HC in POCSO case [Read Judgment]

Hymen tear or genital injuries are not a sine qua non to prove penetrative sexual assault, the Guwahati High Court has held in a case under the POCSO Act, 2012.

16 April, 2024 05:06 PM


Trending Business
SC sets aside judgment upholding arbitral award against DMRC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court overturns arbitral award favoring Reliance Infrastructure subsidiary against DMRC, citing grave miscarriage of justice.

11 April, 2024 11:43 AM
Trending Political NEWS
Delhi HC rejects third plea for Arvind Kejriwal's removal as Delhi CM, blasts petitioner for abuse of judicial process [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court dismisses the third PIL plea before it seeking Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal’s removal as Chief Minister of Delhi, imposes Rs. 50,000 cost on petitioner.

11 April, 2024 03:29 PM
Trending Judiciary
Use of social media to interfere with administration of justice needs serious consideration: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court warns against social media misuse in legal matters, cautions against prejudicial posts interfering with justice.

11 April, 2024 05:44 PM
Trending Legal Insiders
Two-day conference on April 13-14 on Technology and Dialogue between SC and Singapore

Explore AI's role in law at the India-Singapore Supreme Court conference on technology, enhancing judicial processes and access to justice, April 13-14, 2024.

12 April, 2024 06:16 PM


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email