http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DILBAGH SINGH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/11/1992

BENCH: [J.S. VERMA, YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

ACT: Civil Services; Chandigarh  Transport  Undertaking-Conductors-Selection  for appointment-Constitution  of   Selection  Board-Select  list prepared-Criticism of  favouritism and  nepotism in awarding marks   at    Interview-Confirmed    on    examination    by Administration though  corruption charges  not  established- however  selection   unfair  and  injudicious-Administration ordering cancellation  of select  list and  constituting new Selection Board-Validity  of-Non affording of opportunity to Members of  Selection Board  and selected  candidates-Effect of.

HEADNOTE: For filling  up the posts of 32 vacancies of conductors in  the   Transport  Undertaking  under  it,  the  appellant requested  the  Employment  Exchange  to  sponsor  names  of eligible candidates  and constituted  a Selection  board  to prepare a  Select list.  The Selection Board interviewed 446 candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and prepared a Select  List of  32  candidates  on  the  basis  of  marks awardable for  educational qualifications and performance at the interview.  There was criticism that the select list was an amalgum  of favouritism,  nepotism  and  even  corruption resorted to by members of the Selection board. The appellant got the  select list examined which revealed that the select list was  not prepared by the members of the Selection board fairly and judiciously, in that, the members had taken undue advantage of  awarding marks  in  the  interview  to  favour candidates of their choice although there was no evidence of corruption. Hence  the appellant decided to constitute a new Selection Board to prepare fresh select list on the basis of only 15  per cent marks awardable to candidates or pull down merited candidates. Accordingly, the appellant cancelled the select list  of candidates constituted a new Selection Board to prepare  a fresh  select  list  from  out  of  candidates including those  who had  been interviewed  by  the  earlier Selection Board and the criteria to be followed was that 85% marks would  be awardable for educational qualifications and 15% marks for performance in interview. When the newly constituted Selection Board was about to interview the  candidates, the respondents whose names found place in  the cancelled  select list  approached the Central Administrative Tribunal  seeking the  setting aside  of  the order cancelling  the select  list and  constituting  a  new Board. The  Tribunal, on  the  ground  of  non-affording  of opportunity to  the members  of the  Selection Board  before

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

cancelling the  select list,  set aside  the order issued by the appellant  and directed  the appellant to appoint in the available vacancies the candidates from the cancelled select list in  preference  to  candidates  from  the  select  list prepared by the newly constituted Selection Board. Beingaggrieved by  the Tribunal’s  order the  appellant preferred the present appeal by special leave. On behalf  of  the  appellant  it  was  contended  that affording of  an opportunity to the members of the Selection Board before  cancelling the  select list  being  neither  a requirement  of   law  nor  a  requirement  of  any  of  the principles of  natural justice,  it could not have been made the sole  ground for  setting aside  the order issued by the appellant. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the select list  of candidates prepared by the earlier Selection Board   has been cancelled by the appellant though there was no proof  of corruption  charges against  the members of the Selection Board; and that an opportunity of hearing ought to have been  given to the candidates in the select list before it was cancelled. Allowing the appeal, this court, HELD:   1.   The   order   made   by   the   appellant- Administration  cancelling  the select  list cannot  but  be regarded athe  right and  just one.  Such an order cannot be vitiated on  the  ground  that  it  had  been  made  without affording an  opportunity of  hearing to  the members of the Selection Board  who had prepared it. Further, such an order cannot be  vitiated either  because no  direct evidence  was made available  to   prove corruption  charges  against  the members of  the Selection  Board in  the matter  of award of interview marks  by them so as to tilt the balance in favour of  candidates  with  poor  educational  qualifications  and against the  candidates with high educational qualifications or because  there was  no opportunity of hearing afforded to the candidates  in theselect  list to  sustain it before its cancellation by the appellant-Administration. [318-c-f] 2.Affording  of   an  opportunity   of  hearing  by  an Administration  to   the  members   of  a   Selection  Board constituted by  it, before  cancelling a dubious select list of candidates  for appointment  to civil  posts prepared  by such Selection  Board is  not and cannot be a requirement of either law or any principle of natural justice. It is so for the reason  that no  member of  a Selection  Board. Besides, there is  no personal  right or  interest of any member of a Selection Board  which could  be adversely  affected by  the Administration  cancelling   a  select  list  of  candidates prepared by  the Selection  Board when  it is  found to have been  prepared   by  the  Selection  Board,  in  unfair  and injudicious manner. [318-G; H 319-A] 3.  The   select  list,  which  was  cancelled  by  the appellant-Administration  was  found  by  it  to  have  been prepared in  unfair and  injudicious  manner,  in  that  the interview marks  purported  to  have  been  awarded  by  the members of  the  Selection  Board  for  the  performance  of candidates at  their interview  were either inflated to push up  the   candidates  who  had  got  poor  marks  for  their educational qualifications  or deflated  to  pull  down  the candidates who  had got  high marks  for  their  educational qualifications. That select list was also found to have been prepared without  adopting common  eligibility criteria  for all candidates.  when the  said reasons formed the basis for the appellant-Administration  to cancel the select list, the fact that charges of corruption levelled against the members of the  Selection Board  in the  preparation of  that select

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

list had not been established by direct evidence produced in that regard, can make no difference. [319-E-H] 4. Since  it is  accepted that  a candidate who finds a place in  the  select  list  as  a  candidate  selected  for appointment  to   a  civil   post,  does   not  acquire   an indefeasible right  to be  appointed in  such  post  in  the absence  of   any  specific  Rule  entitling  him  for  such appointment and he could be aggrieved by hes non-appointment only when  the Administration  does so either arbitrarily or for  no  bona  fide  reasons,  it  follows  as  a  necessary concomitant that  such candidate even if he has a legitimate expectation of being appointed in such posts due to his name finding a  place in  the select  list of  candidates, cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select list is cancelled  for   bona  fide   and  valid   reasons  and  not arbitrarily.[321-B,C] Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India, JT (1991) 2 SC 380, relied on.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4649 of 1992.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  27.5.1991  of  the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in Regn. No. OA- 139-CH of 1990.      Raj Birbal for the appellant.      S.S. Nijjar,  Bhal Singh Malik and Vishal Malik for the Respondents.      The judgment of the Court was delivered by      VENKATACHALA, J. Leave granted.      The short  question arising  for our  decision in  this Appeal  is,  whether  the  Order  by  which  the  Chandigarh Administration cancelled  the select  list of candidates for appointment  as   Conductors  in  the  Chandigarh  Transport Undertaking (CTU)  prepared by a Selection Board constituted therefor, because of its view of that select list not having been prepared  in a fair and judicious manner, was liable to be interfered  with by  the Central  Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on the ground of that Order having not been made after affording an  opportunity of  hearing thereon to the members of the concerned Selection Board.      The facts  giving rise  to the  said question  lie in a narrow compass.  In the  year 1989, there arose 32 vacancies of conductors  in CTU  of Chandigarh was required to sponsor the  names  of  eligible  candidates  while  a  three-member Selection Board constituted by the Chandigarh Administration was required  to prepare  a select list of 32 candidates out of such candidates. That selection Board interviewed as many as 446  candidates so  sponsored by  the Regional Employment Exchange and  prepared a select list of 32 candidates on the basis   of    marks   awardable    for   their   educational qualifications plus  the marks awarded for their performance at the  interview, a  criteria which  was said  to have been followed by  a Selection  board constituted  for  a  similar purpose in  the Year  1953. That criteria, although required the  award   of  marks  for  the  educational  qualification possessed by  a candidate  upto 110, enabled every member of the Selection  Committee to award marks for such candidate’s performance at  the interview upto 20. The select list of 32 candidates meant  to fill  the 32 vacancies of conductors in CTU, when  was announced  on September  11,1989, it  invited severe criticism from the members of both the public and the Press as  to the role of the members of t he Selection Board

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

in the matter of its preparation. The select list, according to the  criticism, was  the amalgum  of favourtism. nepotism and even  corruption resorted  to  by  the  members  of  the Selection Board.  The Chandigarh  Administration which could not ignore such criticism, got examined the select list with reference   to the  marks awardable  to the  candidates  for their educational qualification and the marks awarded by the members of  the Selection  Board to the candidates for their performance at  the interview  had brought  into select list the least  qualified candidates  who had  been awarded least marks for  marks for  their educational qualifications. Such examination also  revealed that  uniform standards  had  not been applied  to app  candidates by  the Selection  Board in their selection. These revelations, compelled the Chandigarh Administration  to   conclude  that   the  select   list  of candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU had not been prepared by  the members  of the  Selection Board fairly and judiciously in  that those members had taken undue advantage of the  marks awardable  by them  at the interview to favour the  candidates  of  their  choice  although  there  was  no clinching  evidence   of  corruption   attributable  to  the members. This  situation made  the Chandigarh Administration to think of cancellation of the dubious select list prepared by the  Selection Board  and of  the constitution  of a  new Selection Board  to prepare a fresh select list on the basis of only  15 per cent interview marks awardable to candidates as against  30 per  cent interview  marks awardable earlier, lest the  power of  the Selection  Board to  award interview marks may be utilised either to pull up unmerited candidates or pull  down  the  merited  candidates.  Consequently,  the Chandigarh Administration  made an  order of  cancelling the select list  of candidates  for  appointment  as  conductors prepared by  the Selection  Board and published on September 11,1989, and  constituted a new Selection Board to prepare a fresh select list of candidates including those who had been interviewed by the earlier Selection Board, according to the fresh selection  criteria with  85 per  cent marks awardable for educational qualifications of candidates and 15 per cent marks awardable for their performance at interview.      The newly constituted Selection Board when was about to interview the eligible candidates for selection as conductor for CTU,  the Respondents  in this  Appeal, whose  names had found places  in the  cancelled select  list of  candidates, filed applications before CAT seeking the setting aside of t he aforesaid  order made by the Chandigarh Administration by which it  had cancelled  the select  list  prepared  by  the earlier Selection  Board and  directed the newly constituted Selection Board to prepare a fresh select list of candidates on the  basis  of  altered  criteria  of  marks.  CAT  which entertained those  applications, has  by its  Judgment dated May 27,1991  not merely  set aside that part of the impugned order of  the Chandigarh  Administration  by  which  it  had cancelled the  earlier select  list but  also  directed  the Chandigarh Administration  by  which  it  had  cancelled  to earlier  select   list  but  also  directed  the  Chardigarh Administration to  appoint in  the  available  vacancies  of conductors in  CTU the  candidates from the cancelled select list in  preference to  candidates selected as conductors in the select  list prepared  by the fresh Selection Board. The Chandigarh Administration,  which  felt  aggrieved  by  this Judgment of CAT has preferred this Appeal by special leave.      In its  judgment under  Appeal, the  CAT has, no doubt, expressed its  reactions to  the  views  of  the  Chandigarh Administration as  to t  he charge  of  corruption  levelled against the  members of  the earlier  Selection Board in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

matter of preparation of select list of candidates by it and the percentage  of marks  awardable to  candidates for their performance  at  interview  while  examining  the  challenge directed  against   the  order   made  by   the   Chandigarh Administration cancelling that select list and requiring the preparation of a fresh select list. Yet, those reactions are not made  use of by the CAT as grounds for setting aside the order of  Chandigarh Administration  impugned before it. The sole ground,  has been  from the Judgment, which has weighed with the  CAT for  setting aside  that part  of the impugned order of  Chandigarh Administration  by  which  it  had  can called the select list of candidates prepared by the earlier Selection Board  in  the  non-affording  by  the  Chandigarh Administration of  an opportunity  of hearing to the members of its  Selection Board before cancelling the select list of candidates prepared by them.      It was  contended on  behalf of  the  Appellant  -  the Chandigarh Administration-that  affording of  an opportunity of hearing  to the  members of  the earlier  Selection Board before cancelling  their dubious  select list  of candidates for appointment  as  conductors  in  CTU,  being  neither  a requirement of  law nor  a requirement  of any  principle of natural Justice,  the CAT   could  not have made it the sole ground for setting aside of the order by which the Appellant had cancelled such select list and hence the Judgment of CAT under appeal  based on  such untenable ground required to be set aside. The learned counsel for Respondents-Candidates in the select  list cancelled by the Chandigarh Administration, however, did  not choose  to urge  that the  ground of  non- affording of an opportunity by the Chandigarh Administration to the  members  of  the  selection  Board  before  ordering cancellation of  their select  list, was  a valid  ground on which the  CAT could  have rested its Judgment under appeal. But,  he   contended,  rather  very  streneously,  that  the Judgment of  CAT under  appeal was  required to be sustained for the  reason that  the cancellation of the select list of candidates prepared  by the earlier Selection Board had been made by  the Appellant  (Chandigarh Administration)  without proof of  corruption charges levelled against the members of that  Selection   Board  in  that  matter  of  selection  of candidates and  further without  affording an opportunity of hearing to  the candidates in the select list to sustain the same.      We shall  now proceed  to examine the sustainability or otherwise of  the rival  contentions. The  Judgment  of  CAT itself refers  to the  enquiry got  conducted by  Chandigarh Administration about  the select  list of  32 candidates  as prepared by  its Selection Board. Such enquiry revealed that the members  of the  Selection Board.  Such enquiry revealed that the  members of the Selection Board had made use of the interview  marks   awardable  by  them  for  performance  of candidates at interview to eliminate merited candidates from the list  and to  bring in unmerited candidates, is a matter adverted to  in the  said Judgment. No doubt, the Chandigarh Administration (Appellant)  has  found  that  there  was  no direct evidence  of corruption  produced against the members of the  Selection Board for the favour they had shown in the matter  of   awarding  high  interview  marks  to  unmerited candidates. Yet,  having regard  to the systematic manner of award by  the Selection  Board of  high interview  marks  to candidates  with   low  marks   got  for  their  educational qualifications and of low interview marks to candidates with high marks  got for  their educational  qualifications,  the Chandigarh Administration  discerned the  tilting of balance by the  Selection Board  in favour  of candidates  with poor

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

qualifications   and    against   candidates    with    high qualifications.  Consequently,   it   concluded   that   the Selection  Board   had  not   prepared  to  select  list  of candidates for  appointment as  conductors in CTU, in a fair and judicious  manner. When  the select list prepared by the Selection  Board   was  thus   regarded  by  the  Chandigarh Administration as  a dubious  select list, it cancelled that select list and constituted a new Selection Board to prepare a fresh  select list  of candidates  out  of  the  competing candidates  including   the  candidates   whose  cases  were considered by  the  earlier  Selection  Board,  on  a  fresh selection criteria  which provided  for award of as large as 85     percent  marks   for  educational  qualifications  of candidates and  for award  of as  little as  15 percent  for performance of  candidates at  interview, by making an order in  that  regard.  The  order  so  made  by  the  Chandigarh Administration cannot  but be  regarded as the right and the just one.  Such an  order, as  is held  by  CAT,  cannot  be vitiated on  the  ground  that  it  had  been  made  without affording an  opportunity of  hearing to  the members of the Selection Board  who had prepared it. Further, such an order cannot be  vitiated either  because no  direct evidence  was made available  to  prove  corruption  charges  against  the members of  the Selection  Board in  the matter  of award of interview marks  by them so as to tilt the balance in favour of  candidates  with  poor  educational  qualifications  and against the  candidates with high educational qualifications or because  there was  no opportunity of hearing afforded to the candidates  in the select list to  sustain it before its cancellation by the Chandigarh Administration.      Affording  of   an  opportunity   of  hearing   by   an Administration  to   the  members   of  a   Selection  Board Constitute by it, before cancelling a dubious select list of candidates for  appointment to  civil posts prepared by such Selection Board  is not  and cannot be requirement of either law or  any principle  of natural  justice. It is so for the reason that  no member  of a  selection Board  acquires  any vested  right  or  interest  in  sustaining  a  select  list prepared by  the  Selection  Board.  Besides,  there  is  no personal right  or interest  of any  member of  a  Selection Board  which   could   be   adversely   effected,   by   the Administration  cancelling   a  select  list  of  candidates prepared by  Selection Board  when it  is found to have been prepared by  the selection  Board in  unfair and injudicious manner.  Therefore,   there  can   arise  no   need  to  any Administration to  afford an  opportunity of  hearing to the members of  the Selection  Board before cancelling a dubious select list  of candidates  for appointment  to civil  posts prepared by it. Hence, we must hold that the CAT  was wholly wrong in  setting  aside  the  Chandigarh  Administration’s order by  which the  dubious select  list of  candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU prepared by Selection Board constituted by  it had been cancelled, on its erroneous view that non-affording  of an  opportunity of  hearing  tot  the members of  the Selection Board before cancelling its select list had  vitiated that  Order. This would be our answer tot he question adverted to at the outset.      Coming to  the contentions  of the  learned counsel for Respondents (selectees  in the  cancelled select  list) that the Chandigarh  Administartion  when  had  found  no  direct evidence  which   could  establish   charges  of  corruption levelled against  the members  of the Selection Board in the matter of  preparation of  select  list  of  conductors  for appointments as  conductors in  its CTU,  it should not have made an  order cancelling the select list, all that could be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

said is,  that  failure  on  the  part  of  complainants  to establish charges of corruption levelled against the members of the Selection Board could not have saved the select list, if it  was otherwise  found to  be dubious. The select list, which was  cancelled by  the Chandigarh  Administration  was found by  it to have been prepared in unfair and injudicious manner, in  that the  interview marks purported to have been awarded by  the members  of  the  Selection  Board  for  the performance of  candidates at  their interview  were  either inflated to  push up  the candidates  who had got poor marks for their  educational qualifications  or deflated  to  pull down the  candidates  who  had  got  high  marks  for  their educational qualifications.  That select list was also found to have  been prepared  without adopting  common eligibility criteria, for  all candidates.  When the said reasons formed the basis  for the  Chandigarh Administration  to cancel the select list of the Selection Board, the fact that charges of corruption levelled  against the  members to  the  Selection Board in  the preparation  of that  select list had not been established by  direct evidence produced in that regard, can make no difference.      What remains  for our  consideration is that contention of the  learned counsel for Respondents that the Respondents who were  the selectes  in the  select list should have been heard by  the Chandigarh  Administration before it cancelled that list  as a  dubious one.  According to learned counsel, non-affording  of   an  opportunity   of  hearing   to   the Respondents- Selectees  before the select list in which they had found  places as  selected condidates for appointment in the vacant  civil posts  of  conductors  in  CTU  should  be regarded by  us a  s a  sufficient ground not to disturb the Judgment of  the CAT  under appeal,  although  the  Judgment itself is  not rendered  on that  basis. The  contention  of learned counsel on our view, misconceived and hence calls to be rejected.      In Shankarasan  Das v.  Union of  India, reported in JT (1991) 2  SC 380,  a Constitution  Bench of this Court which had occasion  to examine  the question  whether a  candidate seeking appointment  to a civil post can be regarded to have acquired an  indefeasible right  to appointment in such post merely because  of the  appearance of  his name in the merit list (select  list) of candidates for such post has answered the question  in the  negative by  enunciating  the  correct legal position thus:      "it is not correct to say that if a      number of  vacancies  are  notified      for appointment and adequate number      of condidates  are found  fit,  the      successful  candidates  acquire  an      indefeasible right to b appointment      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  u   p  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

    for appropriate reasons. And if the      vacancies or any of 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.      This  correct   position  has  been      consistently   followed   by   this      Court,  and  we  do  not  find  any      discordant note in the decisions in      the State  of  Haryana  v.  Subbash      Chander      Marwaha and  others. [1974]  1  SCR      165; Miss Neelima  Shangla v. State      of Haryana and others, [1986] 4 SCC      268, or  Jitendra Kumar  and others      v.  State  of  Punjab  and  others:      [1985] 1 SCR 899."      If we  have regard  to the  above  enunciation  that  a candidate who  finds  a  place  in  the  select  list  as  a candidate selected for appointment to a civil post, does not acquire an  indefeasible  right  to  be  appointed  in  such posting the  absence of  any specific Rule entitling him for such appointment  and he  could be  aggrieved  by  his  non- appointment only  when the  Administration  does  so  either arbitrarily or  for no  bona fide  reasons, it  follows as a necessary concomitant  that such  candidate even  if  has  a legitimate expectation  of being appointed in such posts due to  his   name  finding  a  place  in  the  select  list  of candidates, cannot  claim to have a right to be heard before such select  list is  cancelled  for  bona  fide  and  valid reasons and  not arbitrarily:  In the instant case, when the Chandigarh  Administration  which  received  the  complaints about the unfair and injudicious manner in which select list of candidates  for appointment  as  conductors  in  CTU  was prepared by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose, found those  complaints to be well founded on an enquiry got made in  that  regard,  we  are  unable  to  find  that  the Chandigarh Administration  had acted  either arbitrarily  or without bona  fide and  valid  reasons  in  cancelling  such 0dubious select  list. Hence, the contentions of the learned counsel for  the Respondents as to the sustainability of the Judgment of  CAT under appeal on the ground of non-affording of an  opportunity of hearing to the Respondents (candidates in  the   select  list)   is  a   misconceived  one  and  is consequently rejected.      In the  result, we  allow this  appeal, set  aside  the Judgment under   appeal, and reject the applications made by Respondents before  CAT, Chandigarh.  However, in  the facts and circumstances  of this  appeal, we  make no  order as to costs.  G.N.                                 Appeal allowed.