Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of Empaneled Candidates: KSRTC vs. Akhilesh V.S. (2019)

Date of the Judgment: April 1, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 325

Judges: Arun Mishra, J., Navin Sinha, J.

Can a candidate whose name appears in a rank list demand appointment against vacancies that arose after the requisition was made? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in the case of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Akhilesh V.S., clarifying that mere empanelment does not guarantee a right to appointment. This judgment underscores the employer’s discretion in filling vacancies, especially in light of valid reasons such as financial constraints. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha, with Justice Navin Sinha authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) initiated a recruitment process for the post of Blacksmith Grade II. The sanctioned cadre strength for this post was 800, with 395 positions already filled. KSRTC requested the Kerala Public Service Commission (the Commission) to fill 405 vacancies. The Commission initially recommended 351 candidates, followed by six more and then an additional 23 against non-joining vacancies. The respondents in the case were applicants who were included in the rank list at serial numbers 284 and 294. Appointments were made only up to rank number 278. The rank list expired on 21.10.2017. The respondents did not allege any discrimination or violation of the rank list during the appointment process. The High Court, however, directed KSRTC to make appointments against all requisitioned vacancies, including those that arose during the life of the rank list.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court opined that the appellant, KSRTC, was obligated to make appointments against all requisitioned vacancies, including those that may have arisen subsequently during the life of the rank list. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s direction to fill 97 vacancies.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the interpretation of the rights of candidates included in a rank list and the employer’s discretion in making appointments. There are no specific legal provisions quoted in the judgment.

Arguments

Appellant (KSRTC) Arguments:

• KSRTC argued that the High Court erred in issuing a mandamus to fill up 97 vacancies, including those arising after the initial requisition but during the life of the rank list.
• They contended that vacancies arising subsequently could not be clubbed with the earlier requisition and must be part of a separate selection process.
• KSRTC asserted that mere existence of vacancies or empanelment does not create an indefeasible right to appointment.
• The appellant argued that they had valid reasons, including a financial crunch and a skewed staff-to-bus ratio, for not making further appointments.
• They argued that the court cannot substitute its views for those of the employer, especially when the employer has valid reasons for not filling all vacancies.

Respondent (Empaneled Candidates) Arguments:

• The respondents argued that since their names were included in the rank list, and vacancies existed, they had a right to be appointed.
• They relied on the High Court’s decision that KSRTC was obligated to fill all requisitioned vacancies, including those arising during the life of the rank list.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether mere empanelment can justify a mandamus to make appointments because vacancies may exist.
2. Whether mandamus can be issued to make appointments from the panel on vacancies which may have arisen subsequently due to superannuation etc. during the life of the rank list.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Kulwinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2016) 6 SCC 532* and Manoj Manu v. Union of India, (2013) 12 SCC 171* to emphasize that mere empanelment or inclusion in a select list does not create an absolute right to appointment. These cases were used to support the view that the employer has the discretion not to fill all vacancies, provided there are valid reasons.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that mere empanelment does not guarantee a right to appointment. The Court emphasized the employer’s discretion in filling vacancies, especially when valid reasons such as financial constraints exist. The Court also considered the need for a separate selection process for vacancies that arise after the initial requisition. The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on established legal precedents that underscore that inclusion in a select list does not automatically confer a right to a job.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that “mere existence of vacancies or empanelment does not create any indefeasible right to appointment.” The Court further stated that “vacancies which may have arisen subsequently could not be clubbed with the earlier requisition and necessarily had to be part of another selection process.” The Court also recognized that “the employer also has the discretion not to fill up all requisitioned vacancies, but which has to be for valid and germane reasons not afflicted by arbitrariness.”

Key Takeaways

• Mere empanelment in a rank list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment.
• Employers have the discretion not to fill all requisitioned vacancies, provided they have valid reasons.
• Vacancies arising after the initial requisition should be part of a separate selection process.
• Courts cannot substitute their views for those of the employer, especially when the employer has valid reasons for not filling all vacancies.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court, and the appeals were allowed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that mere empanelment in a rank list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment and that the employer has the discretion not to fill all vacancies for valid and germane reasons. This judgment reinforces the existing position of law that an employer is not obligated to fill all vacancies, even if candidates are empanelled. The judgment clarifies that vacancies arising after the initial requisition must be part of a separate selection process.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Akhilesh V.S. clarifies that mere empanelment in a rank list does not guarantee a right to appointment. The Court upheld the employer’s discretion not to fill all vacancies, especially when valid reasons, such as financial constraints, exist. This judgment underscores the importance of a separate selection process for vacancies that arise after the initial requisition, thereby providing clarity on the rights of empanelled candidates and the obligations of employers.