K. Suseela Gomathi vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and another

Heard the parties.

The petitioner in the above writ petition has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd Respondent to issue the appointment order

for the post of a Research Assistant (non-medical), Internal Medicine Research Wing in Government Hospital, Balarangapuram, attached to

Madurai Medical College.

Mr.M.N.Muthukumaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission called for applications

for the post of a Research Assistant (non-medical) at Internal Medicine Research Wing in Government Hospital, Madurai during 1993 and the

petitioner applied to the said post. She was asked to write an entrance examination. After the said entrance examination, by the proceedings dated

26.9.1995, the 1st respondent informed her that she was selected to the said post and also submitted a physical fitness certificate. Thereafter she

did not get any appointment order. The counsel for the petitioner further contends that she is put to irreparable loss and hardship as she has not

been appointed till date due to total delay on the part of the respondents in all those years.

The learned Additional Government Pleader on the other hand states that the Government sanctioned one post of Research Assistant (non-

medical) in G.O. Ms.No.199, Health Research Wing, in Government Hospital, Balarangapuram attached to Madurai Medical College.

4.(a) According to the ad hoc rules issued for the post of Research Assistant in G.O.Ms. No. 1879 Health dt. 31.10.90 educational qualification

and method of appointment are as follows:-

Method of appointment: ( i) By transfer from any other category or class. (ii) By recruitment by transfer from any other service. (iii) By Direct

Recruitment.

Educational Qualification: A first or second class decree in M.Sc., (Bio-Chemistry) in the faculty of Medicine/Science of any University or

Institution recognised by the University Grands Commission for the purpose of its grants.

(or)

M.Sc.,(Bio-Technology) of any University or Institution recognised by the University grants Commission for the purpose of its grants,

4.(b) It is further stated on behalf of the respondents that a circular was issued in office letter Ref.No.l2650/E2/l/91 dt. 21.1.91 to the Heads of

Medical institution for furnishing the particulars of the eligible candidates to fill up post of Research Assistant (non-medical) through the first and

second method of appointment. Since no departmental candidates have applied for his post, the Government have been addressed in this office

Ir.Ref.No.12650/E2/l/91 dt. 5.5.92 to fill up the above post by direct recruitment, through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.

Eventhough the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has selected the petitioner for appointment to the said post in their letter dated

13.9.1995 the Government have not issued any appointment order till date because the Dean, Madurai Medical College, Madurai has stated that

there is no Research work available at the Government Hospital, Balarangapuram and the services of the Research Assistant (non-medical) cannot

be utilised if this post is filled up. The above fact has also been informed to the Government and consequently the Government in their letter dated

14.5.1996 have disbanded the posts sanctioned in G.O. Ms.No.199 Health dt. 2.2.87.

The learned Additional Government Pleader further contends that as per the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and others v, K.V.

Vijeesh, 1996 (2) SCC 762 the petitioner has no legal right to maintain the above writ petition.

I have given a careful consideration to the submissions of both the sides.

In the light of the submissions above there is no doubt the post for which the petitioner was called for the interview and got selected has now

been disbanded and the sanction of the post itself has been withdrawn by the Government letter dated 14.5.1996. It is well settled law that the

petitioner has the right to claim for appointment of the said post.

As rightly pointed out the Apex Court in Union of India and others v. K.V.Vijeesh, 1996 (2) SCC 762 has held that the candidate whose name

appears in the select list does not acquire any right of appointment in Government service in an existing or a future vacancy.

The Apex Court also in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, has held as follows:

It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful

candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an

invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant

recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the

licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the

vacancies or any or them are filled up, the state is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test,

and no discrimination can be permitted.

Following the said decision Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, and it is further held in Union of India and others v. K.V.Vijeesh, 1996 (2)

SCC 762 has held:

''In absence of any such rules governing the appointment for which the candidate is selected there is no justification in directing the authorities to

appoint the candidate.

In the instant case the Government by the letter dated 31.10.95 has disbanded the very post for which the petitioner was selected and sanction

granted in G.O.Ms.No.199, Health dt. 2.2.87 itself was withdrawn. Therefore I do not find that the petitioner has got any legal right to maintain the

above writ petition. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and want of legal contentions. Hence the same is dismissed. No orders as to

costs. Consequently WMP No.20402 of 1997 is also dismissed.