Bipin Chandra Das vs The State of Assam

Hrishikesh Roy, J.—Heard Mr. P.J. Phukan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Mr. B. Goswami, the Standing Counsel for the Water Resources Department. The petitioner offered his candidature for the post of Khalasi in the Upper Assam Investigation Division of the Water Resources Department at Jorhat and since he appeared in the viva voce held on 11.12.1999 where he was asked to appear through the Call Letter dated 29.11.1999 (Annexure-F), he prays for appointment as Khalasi after notification of the select list.

The learned Counsel representing the applicant Mr. P.J. Phukan submits that since the petitioner was subjected to an interview on 11.12.1999, the aspirant has a right for due consideration for appointment and accordingly it is contended that direction be given for notifying the select list and for completing the recruitment exercise. On the belated approach of the petitioner 6 years after the viva voce, Mr. Phukan submits that a ban on recruitment was enforced by the Government since 1999 till 2005 and that is why after the recruitment ban was lifted, the petitioner has belatedly approached the Court.

Representing the respondents, the departmental lawyer Mr. B. Goswami concedes that the interview for the post of Khalasi was held on 11.12.1999 but the Counsel submits that the performance of the candidates were never notified by the Interview Board and the selection process itself was abandoned because of the ban on fresh recruitment notified by the Government on 21.12.1999. The departmental lawyer submits that by participating in the viva voce held in December 1999, the petitioner can''t claim any enforceable right of appointment and accordingly the case is contended to be without any legal merit.

In the context of the incomplete recruitment exercise, the Supreme Court in the The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Ramakrishna Rao and Others, has held that an applicant seeking appointment doesn''t acquire any right of appointment by application or on being selected. In The State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and Others, , the Apex Court held that mere inclusion of the name of an applicant in the select list doesn''t confer him any right to be appointed to the post. That apart, mere existence of vacancies doesn''t also confer an enforceable right to a candidate for appointment. Similarly in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, , the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has declared that the selected candidate do not acquire any vested right to the post and the State is under no legal obligation to fill up all or any of the available vacancies.

But notwithstanding the above decisions of the Apex Court, the State is under an obligation to act without discrimination and in the context of the non-publication of the select list, the Court has to decide as to whether the action of the State was fair and reasonable. The ban on recruitment imposed by the State Government on 21.12.1999 is stated to be the reason for keeping in abeyance the selection exercise undertaken on 11.12.1999. Here the ban continued for 6 long years until 2005 and in the context of the long ban period, the selection exercise was altogether abandoned.

The next issue that is required to be addressed is whether the petitioner is entitled to be given a direction for publication of the select list on the basis of the viva voce conducted on 11.12.1999. In the additional affidavit filed on 14.11.2013 on Court''s order, it is reflected that the records in the Divisional Office of respondent No. 5 were thoroughly searched but no selection records could be found. In the original counter-affidavit it was averred that the Interview Board did not prepare any select list because of the recruitment ban imposed by the State Government.

The reason for keeping in abeyance/abandonment of the selection exercise is attributed to the ban on recruitment which continued from December 1999 to 2005. Since the restraint on recruitment continued for about 6 years, the State in my view could reasonably decide to abandon the recruitment process since in the meantime, many others may have become eligible to seek appointment. Employment opportunities for everyone is envisaged by Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and in the context of the State''s obligation emanating from the two Constitutional provisions, I find that abandonment of the process is reasonable and not arbitrary. As has been, held in. The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Ramakrishna Rao and Others, , The State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and Others, and Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, , even a selected candidate can''t claim any enforceable right for appointment. Therefore mere participation in the viva voce test on 11.12.1999 doesn''t confer on the petitioner any legal right to seek appointment or to seek declaration of the select list. In my considered opinion direction for preparing the select list 15 years after the selection exercise would be unreasonable and will defeat the objectives of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Moreover in view of the lost records it may be impossible to publish a select list as the members of the Selection Committee didn''t indicate their decision at that point of time. For the above reasoning, I do not find any merit in the case and the same is accordingly dismissed without any order on cost.