http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: K.JAYAMOHAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present:                Hon’ble 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 delivered:      Leave granted.  We have  heard learned  counsel for the parties.      This 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.      The 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.      Shri  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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 rights tested.      It is  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. Equally, 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 interference.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.