Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 2808 of 2008

State of Orissa & Anr.        ..Appellants  

Versus

Rajkishore Nanda & Ors.                        ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the Judgment  

and Order of the Orissa High Court dated 26.10.2005 passed in OJC  

Nos.  10582,  11262,  11268,  11269,  11271,  11273,  11275,  11279,  

11280, 11324 & 11326 of 2000, by which the High Court dismissed  

the Writ  Petition filed by the State of  Orissa/Appellant  against  the  

Judgment and order of  the Orissa Administrative Tribunal,  Cuttack  

(hereinafter called as, “the Tribunal”) dated 7.4.2000 issuing direction  

to the appellant to appoint all the persons whose names appeared in  

the panel for the selection on the post of Junior Clerk held in 1995.  

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the present appeal are  

that in order to fill up 15 posts of Junior Clerks in District Sonepur,  

applications were invited by an advertisement dated 25.06.1995.  The  

advertisement  made  it  clear  that  number  of  vacancies  could  be  

increased.   The  respondents  applied  in  pursuance  of  the  said  

advertisement  along  with  large  number  of  persons  and  written  

examination  was  held  in  accordance  with  the  Orissa  Ministerial  

Service  (Method  of  Recruitment  to  Posts  of  Junior  Clerks  in  the  

District  Offices)  Rules,  1985 (hereinafter  called as,  “Rules,  1985”).  

Before  the  selection  process  could  complete,  the  number  of  

vacancies were increased from 15 to 33 and as per the requirement  

of  Rules,  1985,  a  merit  list  of  66  candidates  was  published  on  

6.11.1995.  The appointments were made on the said posts.  The  

respondents, whose names appeared in the merit list and could not  

be  offered  appointment,  being  much  below  in  the  merit  list,  filed  

applications before the Tribunal praying for a direction to the State to  

offer them appointments.  The Tribunal, vide its Judgment and Order  

dated 7.4.2000, came to the conclusion that appointments were to be  

offered to all the candidates till the entire select list stood exhausted.  

2

Therefore, the Tribunal directed to offer appointment to all left over  

candidates in the select list of 1995.   

3. Being aggrieved,  the State preferred the writ  petition against  

the said common Judgment  and order of  the Tribunal  in  the High  

Court of Orissa and the High Court, vide Judgment and order dated  

26.10.2005, modified the order of the Tribunal issuing direction to the  

appellants  to  offer  appointment  to  those  persons  who  had  

approached the Tribunal.  Hence, this appeal.   

4. Sh.  Janaranjan  Das,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellant-State, has submitted that number of vacancies cannot be  

filed up over and above the number of vacancies advertised.  Once  

the advertised vacancies are filled up, the selection process stands  

exhausted and the selection process comes to an end.  Where the  

Rules  provide  to  determine  the  vacancy  yearly,  life  of  select  list  

cannot  be more than one year  and once the life of  the select  list  

expires, no appointment can be offered from the panel so prepared.  

The  Tribunal  and  the  High  Court  committed  an  error  issuing  

directions to appoint the candidates from the unexhausted part of the  

3

select list, which is not permissible in law.  Thus, the appeal deserves  

to be allowed.   

5. Per contra, Sh. H.P. Sahu and Sh. J.P. Mishra, learned counsel  

appearing  for  the  respondents  vehemently  opposed  the  appeal  

contending  that  if  the  selection  is  not  held  in  subsequent  years,  

candidates  whose names appear  in  the  panel  have  to  be  offered  

appointments.   Therefore,  no  interference  is  required  with  the  

impugned Judgment and order of the High Court.  The appeal lacks  

merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.   

6. We  have  considered  the  rival  submissions  of  the  learned  

counsel for the parties and perused the record.   

7. Relevant Rules from Rules, 1985, which are necessary to be  

considered for deciding the appeal, read as under :-

“Rule 2 Definitions –  In  these rules  unless  the context otherwise requires -   ………………. “Year” means a calendar year.    

Rule 3 Recruitment  Recruitment to the posts shall be made through  direct  recruitment  by  means  of  a  competitive  

4

examination to be held ordinarily once in every  year.

Rule 6 Notification of vacancies

On the receipt of the requisite information from  the District  Officers the Chairman of the Board  shall notify the total number of vacancies to the  local  employment  exchange  indicating  therein  the  number  of  reserved  vacancies  for  the  purpose  of  conducting  the  competitive  examination.

Rule  11  (1)     Allotment  of  successful  candidates

The  Chairman  of  the  Board  shall  ensure  completion of evaluation of answer papers and  preparation of  the list  of  successful  candidates  who have qualified by such standards as will be  decided by him ordinarily within two months from  the date of examination.  The candidates’ names  shall be arranged in order of merit on the basis  of  marks  secured  by  them in  the  examination  conducted by the Board.  This list of successful   candidates  drawn  in  order  of  merit  shall  not  ordinarily  exceed  double  the  number  of  vacancies as determined under Rule 6.  

Rule 12 The list prepared under Sub-rule (1)  of Rule 11 shall remain valid for a period of one  year from the date of publication of the same or  till  drawal  of  the  next  year’s  list,  whichever  is  earlier.

8. If the aforesaid relevant Rules are read together, the cumulative  

effect  thereof  comes  to  that  after  determining  the  number  of  

5

vacancies  taking  into  consideration  the  expected  vacancies,  the  

same  shall  stand  notified  to  local  Employment  Exchange  and  

advertise  the  same  through  other  means.   The  select  list,  after  

holding the test as required under the Rules, 1985, shall be prepared  

and published, which shall contain the names of candidates, double  

the number of vacancies so advertised/determined.    

9. Rule  14  merely  enables  the  State  Government  to  relax  the  

eligibility conditions by recording reasons in respect of any class or  

categories of persons in public interest.   

10. It is a settled legal proposition that vacancies cannot be filled up  

over  and  above  the  number  of  vacancies  advertised  as  "the  

recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a  

denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read  

with Article 16(1) of the Constitution", of those persons who acquired  

eligibility  for  the  post  in  question  in  accordance with  the  statutory  

rules subsequent to the date of notification of vacancies. Filling up the  

vacancies  over  the  notified  vacancies  is  neither  permissible  nor  

desirable,  for  the reason,  that  it  amounts  to  "improper  exercise of  

6

power  and  only  in  a  rare  and  exceptional  circumstance  and  in  

emergent situation, such a rule can be deviated and such a deviation  

is  permissible  only  after  adopting  policy  decision  based  on  some  

rational",  otherwise  the  exercise  would  be  arbitrary.  Filling  up  of  

vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future  

vacancies and thus, not permissible in law. (Vide  State of Bihar &  

Ors. Vs. The Secretariat Assistant S.E. Union 1986 & Ors.  AIR  

1994 SC 736;  Prem Singh & Ors. Vs. Haryana State Electricity  

Board  &  Ors.  (1996)  4  SCC  319;  Ashok  Kumar  &  Ors.  Vs.  

Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board & Ors. AIR 1996  

SC 976;  Surinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR  

1998 SC 18; and  Rakhi Ray & Ors. Vs. High Court of Delhi AIR  

2010 SC 932).

11. In  State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma and Ors. AIR  

2001 SC 2900, this Court examined the case where only one post  

was advertised and the candidate whose name appeared at Serial  

No. 1 in the select list joined the post, but subsequently resigned. The  

Court rejected the contention that post can be filled up offering the  

7

appointment  to  the  next  candidate  in  the  select  list  observing  as  

under:

“With the appointment of the first candidate for the only   post  in  respect  of  which  the  consideration  came to  be  made and select list prepared, the panel ceased to exist   and has outlived its utility and at any rate, no one else in  the panel can legitimately contend that he should have  been offered appointment either in the vacancy arising on  account  of  the  subsequent  resignation  of  the  person  appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising  subsequently.”

12. In  Mukul Saikia and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. AIR  

2009 SC 747, this Court dealt with a similar issue and held that "if the  

requisition and advertisement was only for 27 posts, the State cannot  

appoint more than the number of posts advertised". The Select List  

"got  exhausted when all  the  27 posts  were  filled".  Thereafter,  the  

candidates below the 27 appointed candidates have no right to claim  

appointment  to  any vacancy in  regard  to  which  selection  was  not  

held. The "currency of Select List had expired as soon as the number  

of posts advertised are filled up, therefore, the appointments beyond  

the  number  of  posts  advertised  would  amount  to  filling  up  future  

vacancies" and said course is impermissible in law.

8

13. A  person  whose  name  appears  in  the  select  list  does  not  

acquire any indefeasible right of appointment.  Empanelment at the  

best is a condition of  eligibility for purpose of appointment and by  

itself  does not  amount  to  selection  or  create  a vested right  to  be  

appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory  

rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate.  

14. A Constitution Bench of this Court  in  Shankarsan Dash Vs.  

Union of India,  AIR 1991 SC 1612, held that  appearance of the  

name of a candidate in the select list does not give him a right of  

appointment.  Mere inclusion of candidate’s name in the select list  

does  not  confer  any  right  to  be  selected,  even  if  some  of  the  

vacancies  remain  unfilled.  The  candidate  concerned  cannot  claim  

that he has been given a hostile discrimination. (see also Asha Kaul  

& Anr. Vs. State of J & K & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 573; Union of India  

Vs.  S.S.Uppal, AIR  1996  SC  2340; Bihar  Public  Service  

Commission Vs.  State  of  Bihar AIR 1997 SC 2280; Simanchal  

Panda Vs.  State of  Orissa & Ors., (2002)  2 SCC 669;  Punjab  

State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Malkiat Singh (2005) 9 SCC 22;

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Kali Dass Batish & Anr. AIR 2006 SC  

9

789; Divisional Forests Officers & Ors. Vs. M. Ramalinga Reddy  

AIR 2007 SC 2226; Subha B. Nair & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala &  

Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 210; Mukul Saikia & Ors. Vs. State of Assam &  

Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 386; and S.S. Balu & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala &  

Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 479).   

15. Select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of  

appointments, that vacancy can be filled up taking the names from  

that list as and when it is so required.   

It is the settled legal proposition that no relief can be granted to  

the candidate if he approaches the Court after expiry of the Select  

List.   If  the  selection  process  is  over,  select  list  has  expired  and  

appointments had been made, no relief can be granted by the Court  

at  a  belated  stage.  (Vide  J.Ashok  Kumar  Vs.  State  of  Andhra  

Pradesh & Ors., (1996) 3 SCC 225; State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Md.  

Kalimuddin & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1145; State of U.P. & Ors. Vs.  

Harish  Chandra  &  Ors.,  AIR  1996  SC  2173; Sushma  Suri  Vs.  

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Anr., (1999) 1  

SCC 330; State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Ram Swarup Saroj,  (2000) 3  

SCC  699; K.  Thulaseedharan  Vs.  Kerala  State  Public  Service  

10

Commission, Trivendrum & Ors., (2007) 6 SCC 190; Deepa Keyes  

-Vs.- Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr., (2007) 6 SCC 194; and  

Subha B. Nair & Ors. (supra).  

16. The  instant  case  is  required  to  be  examined  in  view of  the  

aforesaid  settled  legal  proposition.   The  Rules,  1985  provide  for  

determining  the  number  of  vacancies  and  holding  competitive  

examination ordinarily once in a year.  Select list prepared so also  

valid for one year.  In the instant case, 15 vacancies were advertised  

with a clear stipulation that number of vacancies may increase.  The  

authorities had taken a decision to fill up 33 vacancies, thus, select  

list of 66 persons was prepared.  It is also evident from the record  

that some more appointments had been made over and above the 33  

determined vacancies.  Thus, once the selection process in respect  

of number of vacancies so determined came to an end, it is no more  

open to offer appointment to persons from the unexhausted list.  It is  

exclusive prerogative of the employer/State Administration to initiate  

the  selection  process  for  filling  up  vacancies  occurred  during  a  

particular year.  There may be vacancies available but for financial  

constraints, the State may not be in a position to initiate the selection  

11

process for making appointments.   Bonafide decision taken by the  

appointing  authority  to  leave  certain  vacancies  unfilled,  even  after  

preparing the select list  cannot be assailed.  The Courts/Tribunals  

have  no  competence  to  issue  direction  to  the  State  to  initiate  

selection process to fill  up the vacancies.  A candidate only has a  

right  to  be  considered  for  appointment,  when  the  vacancies  are  

advertised  and  selection  process  commences,  if  he  possess  the  

requisite eligibility.     

17. As  the  appointments  had  been  made  as  per  the  select  list  

prepared in 1995 and selection process came to an end, there was  

no occasion for  the Tribunal  to  entertain the Applications in 1997,  

1998  and  1999  for  the  simple  reason  that  once  the  number  of  

vacancies determined are filled,  the selection process came to an  

end, no further appointment could be made from 1995 panel.  The  

purpose of making the list of double of the vacancies determined is to  

offer  the  appointment  to  the  persons  from the waiting  list  in  case  

persons who are offered appointment do not join.  But it does not give  

any vested right in favour of the candidates whose names appeared  

therein.   

12

18. It appears from the Judgment of the Tribunal that Rule 11(1) of  

the Rules, 1985 did not provide originally to prepare the list double  

the number of determined vacancies and it was only for preparing the  

list  containing  the  names  equal  to  the  number  of  vacancies  

advertised/determined.  In such a fact-situation, the select list could  

have been prepared only containing 33 names i.e. equivalent to the  

number of vacancies determined.  In such a fact-situation, selection  

process would come to an end automatically whenever 33 candidates  

are appointed.  However, if the appellant had prepared a list double  

the  number  of  vacancies  determined,  that  would  not  create  any  

vested right in favour of the respondents.  Thus, Tribunal committed  

grave error issuing direction to offer appointments to all the left over  

candidates.     

19. The Tribunal held as under :-

“In this case by preparing the panel far exceeding the  number of vacancies, the Rules have been violated.   For  this  lapse  on  the  part  fo  the  Collector,  the   candidates who have been subjected to a rigorous  selection  at  more  than  one  stage,  should  not  be  penalised………….The  validity  of  the  select  list   has expired long since.  Both learned counsel for   the applicant and the learned Government Advocate  

13

concede  that  no  further  recruitment  has  been  conducted  by  the  Collector,  Sonepur.   During  this  intervening period of four years vacancies must be  arisen due to promotion, retirement, creation of new  posts etc. in different offices.” (Emphasis added)  

20. The Tribunal, after recording the finding of fact that life of select  

list  had  expired,  held  that  as  the  selection  could  not  be  held  in  

subsequent years,  thus, candidates whose names appeared in the  

panel should be offered appointment by granting relaxation of Rules.  

Issuance  of  such  a  direction  is  not  permissible  in  law  as  no  

appointment can be made from the panel after expiry of the life of  

select list.   

21. The High Court has concluded as under :-

“Here  the  advertisement  stipulated  that  there  were  vacancies  and  the  vacancy  position  might  go  up.  The  select  list  prepared  admittedly  contained  the  names of  66  successful  candidates.   A  cumulative  reading of Rules 6 & 11(1) of the OMS Rules, 1985  vis-à-vis the select list which contained the names of  66  successful  candidates  leads  to  an  irresistible  conclusion that the number of vacancies at the time  of publication of the select list was 66.  the stand of  the  State  before  this  Court  is  that  under  the  impression that the select list should contain double  the number of vacancies, a lsit of 66 candidates was  published.   But  then,  if  the  said  statement  is  accepted,  the vacancies that  existed at  the time of  

14

publication of the select list would have been 33.  But  it appears that the total number of candidates already  appointed  is  40………The submission  of  the  State  that  as  one  year  had  expired  from  the  date  of  publication of the select list, the same had spent its  validity cannot also be accepted.  If vacancies were  available,  the  candidates  selected  but  illegally  not  sponsored for appointment should not suffer.”     

In  view  of  the  above,  the  High  Court  directed  to  offer  the  

appointment to the persons whose names appeared in the panel and  

had approached the Tribunal.   

22. The aforesaid view taken by the High Court cannot be held to  

be in consonance with law.  More so, if the State has committed an  

error in preparing the merit list containing the names of candidates  

double the number of  vacancies determined,  that  would not  mean  

that select list has become immaterial and all those persons whose  

names appeared in the list would be offered appointment even after  

expiry of the life of select list.   

23. In  view  of  the  above,  the  Judgment  and  order  impugned  

hereinabove cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.  The appeal is  

allowed.  The Judgments and orders of the Tribunal dated 7.4.2000  

15

and the High Court dated 26.10.2005 are set aside.  No order as to  

costs.    

…………………………………..J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

…………………………………..J. (SWATANTER KUMAR)

New Delhi June 3, 2010

16