Vs. State of Kerala & ANR  INSC 467 (25 April 1997)
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.P.Wadhwa T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Adv., Ajit
Pudussery, Adv. with him for the appellant Ms. Malini Poduval and N. Sudhakaran,
Advs. for the Respondents O R D E R The following Order of the Court was
granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Kerala,
made on 25.7.1996 in Writ Appeal No.997/96.
admitted facts are the two posts of Lecturers in Physical Education were
advertised for recruitment in the year 1988 through the Public Service
Commission. Written Test and oral interviews were conducted in the year 1992
and the Select List, a long list of 10 candidates was prepared by the have
already been appointed. Since there often exist some vacancies, the appellant,
one of the selected candidates, made a representation to appoint him. That was rejected
on the ground that pursuant to the amendment to the Kerala Collegiate Education
Service Special Rues, 1994, which came into force with retrospective effect
from March 13, 1990, higher qualifications were
prescribed and since the appellant did not fufil the requisite qualification,
he was not eligible and could not be appointed. When the appellant filed writ
petition, the single Judge and on appeal the Division Bench of the High Court
held that merely because he was kept in the select list, he acquired on
absolute right to appointment and it is not incumbent upon the authorities to
appoint him. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel for the appellant, whether when asked to
find out from page No.2 of the selection is made only to two posts or more,
points out from page No.2 of the judgment of the High Court that the
advertisement was restricted to the existing vacancies, namely, two appoint the
candidate from the waiting list, He has no right to appointment. It is contended
that such an appointment is violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the
Constitution of India as the candidates eligible when selection and get their
settled legal position that merely because a candidate is selected and kept in
the waiting list, he does not acquire any absolute right for appointment. It is
open to the Government to make the appointment or not. Even if there is any
vacancy, it is not incumbent upon the Government to fill up the same. But the
appointing authority must give reasonable explanation for non-appointment.
the Public Service Commission/recruitment agency shall prepare waiting list
only to the extent of anticipated vacancies. In view of the above settled legal
position, on error is found in the judgment of the High Court warranting
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.