AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
In the instant OA the applicants seeking the following relief:
“.........directing the 2nd respondent to appoint the applicants to the post of Lecturer (Physical Education) pursuant to the notification No.2290/DSE/Estt-III/C/2014, by conducting a Review DPC of the DPC held on 09.07.2015 and include the name of the 1st applicant in the OBC category and 2nd applicant in the SC category on the basis of the marks obtained by them i.e., 85.125 & 79.940 respectively with all consequential benefits and pass such further orders of as are necessary to meet the ends of justice and award exemplary cost and thus render justice”.
Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicants are as follows: The Government of Puducherry issued a Notification, dated 09.06.2014 inviting applications for recruitment to eleven posts of Lecturer (Physical Education), pursuant to which a Recruitment Committee was constituted. Physical Education Teachers in the lower grade objected to the proposed direct recruitment. The applicant, being a waitlisted candidate, sought inclusion in the select list. By order dated 10.02.2016, this Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the final select list in the light of the applicants’ objections. Aggrieved by the said order, the Government of Puducherry approached the Hon’ble High Court, which, by order dated 02.03.2017, set aside the Tribunal’s order while treating the application as withdrawn. The Hon’ble High Court also permitted the respondents to publish the Select List and Wait List, with liberty to the applicants to challenge the same after its publication. As the respondents failed to take further action or furnish any response, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the present OA.
The learned counsel for the applicants contended that Respondent No.8, belonging to the MBC category, secured 78.880% marks and was selected against the General Category, whereas Applicant No.1 secured 85.125%Central Administrative Tribunal marks but was placed in the OBC waiting list. Similarly, Applicant No.2 secured 79.940% marks and was placed in the SC waiting list, while Respondents 7 and 8, who secured lesser marks, were included in the select list against the General Category. According to the learned counsel, such selection is illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
It was further submitted that Respondents 9, 11 and 12 are in-service candidates who secured 86.230%, 85.720% and 85.470% marks, respectively, whereas the last candidate in the General Category secured only 78.880% marks. They ought, therefore, to have been accommodated against the General Category, with age relaxation being the only concession extended to them. It was contended that accommodating such meritorious in-service candidates against reserved categories is contrary to law. The learned counsel also submitted that Respondents 3 to 13, who were included in the select list, have approached this Tribunal in OA No.140 of 2019.
The learned counsel further submitted that, in the 2024 selection of Lecturers for Government Higher Secondary Schools, in-service candidates securing higher marks were accommodated against the Unreserved Category. The same principle, according to him, ought to haveCentral Administrative Tribunal been followed in the selection to the post of Lecturer (Physical Education). He argued that the respondents should publish the results and make appointments strictly on the basis of merit, as the rules governing the selection cannot be altered midway. Accordingly, he prayed for grant of the reliefs sought in the present OA.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contentions of the applicants and relied upon the reply statement. He submitted that the OA is highly premature, as the Government is still examining the modalities and legal consequences of issuing a notification for engaging qualified persons on a contractual basis, on consolidated pay, for the post of Lecturer (Physical Education), as is being done for other teaching posts.
He further submitted that, in the absence of publication of the Select List, the applicants have no locus standi to seek appointment. Since the selection process has not culminated in the publication of the Select List, no enforceable right has accrued to the applicants. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. Dastagiri & Others, 2003 (5) SCC 373, wherein it was held that evenCentral Administrative Tribunal inclusion in a select list does not confer a vested right to appointment. It was also pointed out that the applicants herein are merely waitlisted candidates.
The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that, pursuant to the Notification dated 09.06.2014 issued by the Directorate of School Education, no Select List was published for the post of Lecturer (Physical Education) owing to the various litigations pending over the years and the financial constraints faced by the Government. In the absence of a Select List, the applicants cannot claim any right to its publication or to appointment. The Government, particularly in view of its policy decision to engage teachers on a contractual basis due to financial constraints, cannot be compelled to make regular appointments to the said posts. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the OA.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.
Before going to the merits of the issue we would like to extract the relevant portion of the order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the appeal filed by Puducherry Government against the order of this Tribunal in OA Nos.965 & 1614/2015. as hereunderCentral Administrative Tribunal
“10.The Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the original applications even before publishing the select list.
11.The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and other Vs. D. Dastagiri and others 2003 (5) SCC 373, held that in the absence of publication of select list, it cannot be said that the selection process is complete. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, even the candidates included in the select list have no vested right to claim appointment.
12.We make the legal position clear that the original application challenging the selection is not maintainable without publishing the select list. In short, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain original application, challenging the selection or selection process without publishing the select list. The mere statement in the original application that the selection has already been finalized would not serve the purpose. Such self-serving statement alone would not give jurisdiction to the Tribunal to register original application or to decide the matter on merits.
13.When it was pointed as to whether we should call for the records from the Tribunal, and probe further as to how the respondents secured details of selection and Minutes, and the circumstances under which original applications were filed, the learned counsel submitted that the respondents have not filed the Minutes before the Tribunal. The learned counsel fairly submitted that he is not pressing the original applications and the respondents would be satisfied in case liberty is granted to file original applications after publishing the select list. The learned counsel made an endorsement to that effect.
14.In view of the endorsement so made, nothing survives further, for adjudication in the writ petitions.
15.The Original Applications in O.A.Nos.965 and 1614 of 2015 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal are dismissed as withdrawn. The common order dated 10 Central Administrative TribunalFebruary 2016 is set aside. It is open to the second respondent in the concerned writ petitions to challenge the select list, after publication, if they are so advised.
16.The writ petitions are disposed of, with no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed”.
On 04.01.2019, the respondents have passed a speaking order and rejected the claims of the respondents 3 to 12 who are applicants in OA No.140/2019 on the following reasons:
(i)In the absence of the publication of the select list, the applicants do not have any locus standi to seek publication of the select list for the post of Lecturer (Physical Education).
(ii)Even though recruitment notification was issued for the appointment of candidates for the post of Lecturer (Physical Education) and other posts, due to the financial constraints faced by the administration of this Union territory, a policy decision has been taken by the Government to engage qualified candidates on Consolidated pay on contract basis pursuant to which various notifications were issued for engaging qualified persons for various posts. The said policy decision is equally applicable to the post of Lecturer (Physical Education).
(iii)the modalities of issuing notification for engagement of qualified persons by contract basis in respect of the post of Lecturer (Physical Education) on consolidated pay as done for other teaching posts and its legal consequences are being examined by the Government and
(iv)the Government cannot be compelled to appoint any person in any post especially when a policy decision has been taken by the Government to go for contractual engagement for all teaching posts due to the financial constraints faced by the Government.
From the pleadings and the records placed before us, it is evident that the Government of Puducherry issued a Notification dated 09.06.2014 inviting applications for recruitment to eleven posts of Lecturers (Physical Education). The recruitment process was thereafter completed, including the verification of the candidates’ certificates and records. However, appointment orders were not issued to the Applicants. In the circumstances, the question for our consideration is not merely whether the Select List was formally published. The real issue is whether, having been selected and their credentials duly verified, the Applicants acquired an enforceable right to seek appointment to the posts in question.
We find that the said issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Assam & Others v. Arabinda Rabha & Others, Civil Appeal No.2350 of 2025, by order dated 07.03.2025, reported in 2025 INSC 334, has considered the issue and observed as follows:
50.What follows from the above is that each case has to be decided on its own peculiar facts. It has to be pleaded and proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the decision of the recruiting authority (to cancel the entire process because of wrongdoing by some tainted elements and not save a part of the process, to the extent it could be saved, to the utter detriment of the interests of the innocent) is wholly disproportionate to the risk and overly severe relative to Central Administrative Tribunalwhat is at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational.
51.Based on what has been discussed in the paragraphs preceding consideration of the authorities cited by Mr. Goswami, the appellants’ decision in cancelling the entire selection process initiated vide the advertisement dated 23rd July, 2014 relying on the note of the PCCF dated 4th July, 2016, and not part of it, in our considered opinion, does not seem to be either arbitrary or unreasonable or without any sense of proportion. Since the earlier process did border on fraud, in the light of the reservation policy not being respected and observance of the decisions of this Court (that meritorious reserved category candidates are entitled to be accommodated in the open category) in breach, there was a brazen violation which was sought to be corrected and, if we may say, justifiably so. It has not been proved to our satisfaction that the impugned decision of cancelling the select list is the neat result of an injudicious exercise of discretion and was ill directed in the guise of achieving the sanctity of the entire selection process.
52.The broad issue and issue (a) (supra) are, thus, answered in favour of the appellants by holding that the impugned decision of cancellation was neither unjustified nor was one which could be upset by applying the doctrines of either Wednesbury unreasonableness or proportionality.
The Constitution bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that placement in a select list does not create an “indefeasible” or absolute right to appointment. The select list indicates that a candidate has met the qualifications and is eligible for consideration, but it does not guarantee an appointment. The State or its instrumentalities have the authority to decide whether or not to fill vacancies based on bona fide reasons, even if such vacancies are available.Central Administrative Tribunal In the present OA, the applicants are in waitlist and still Worser than the selected candidates.
It is well settled in law that a candidate whose name appears in the select list/waitlist does not acquire any indefeasible right to appointment to the post in the absence of any specific rule entitling such appointment. (See: Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs Dilbagh Singh & Ors., (1993) 1 SCC 154; Mohd. Rashid Vs. Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat & Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 582 and State of Manipur & Anr. Vs. Takhelmayum Khelendro Meitei & Ors., (2019) 3 SCC 331)
From the records we can come to a conclusion that it is for the reason that the necessity of filling up vacant posts, which is undoubtedly a matter of public interest, has to be balanced against the administrative considerations as explained in the reply statement of respondents. No mala fides or bias can be attributed to the respondents, nor is there any material on record to suggest that the decision-making process suffered from arbitrariness or was an abuse of administrative power, even when examined in the light of the records placed.
17.Central Administrative Tribunal In the above circumstances and based on the judgement outlined above, we find that the applicants have not made out a case. In the result the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.