Supreme Court clarifies: Select List Exhausted After Appointment in Service Matters: Union of India vs. G Ramesh (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 09 January 2020. Citation: Not Available. Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can a candidate who was second on a merit list claim appointment after the first candidate, who was appointed, is dismissed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning the validity of a select list after an appointment and subsequent dismissal. The core issue was whether the dismissal of an appointed candidate revives the select list, allowing the next candidate in line to claim the position. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, who authored the opinion, and Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Case Background

The Superintendent of Post Offices, Hanamkonda, issued a notification on 4 November 2013, for a departmental examination for the postman cadre. The results were declared on 20 December 2013. G Vijender was selected and appointed as a postman. The respondent, G Ramesh, was second on the merit list. Following a complaint that G Vijender had secured his appointment fraudulently, he was suspended on 24 January 2014. G Ramesh then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at Hyderabad, seeking appointment in place of G Vijender. The CAT initially dismissed his application as premature. After a departmental inquiry, G Vijender was dismissed from service on 29 April 2016. G Ramesh again approached the CAT, which directed the authorities to consider his request. His representation was rejected, leading him to file another application before the CAT. The Tribunal ruled in favor of G Ramesh, stating he had a right to be appointed upon the dismissal of G Vijender. The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad upheld this decision.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking a direction for appointment after G Vijender was suspended. The Tribunal dismissed the application as premature. After G Vijender’s dismissal, the respondent again approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled that the respondent had a right to be appointed to the post of postman, as the previously appointed candidate was dismissed. The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad affirmed this order of the Tribunal. The Union of India then filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily relies on the principle that a select list is exhausted once an appointment is made. There are no specific sections of any statute mentioned in the judgment. The core principle discussed is the finality of the selection process once a candidate is appointed from the select list.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Union of India):

• The Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, argued that once the selection process was complete with the appointment of G Vijender, the Select List was exhausted.
• The subsequent dismissal of G Vijender would not revive the Select List.
• Both the Tribunal and the High Court erred in concluding that the respondent had a vested right to appointment.
• The appellants relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited v Delson Davis P.

Arguments by the Respondent (G Ramesh):

• Mr. M Venkanna, learned counsel, argued that G Vijender’s appointment was void ab initio as it was secured through fraudulent means.
• It was not necessary for the Department to hold a disciplinary enquiry, and a simple termination order with a notice would have sufficed.
• The respondent, being second in the merit list, should have been appointed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed was:

1. Whether the select list for the post of postman is revived after the dismissal of the candidate who was initially appointed from that list?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal principle that a select list is exhausted once an appointment is made. The Court emphasized the finality of the selection process and the need to treat subsequent vacancies as fresh opportunities. The fraudulent nature of the initial appointment did not sway the Court to revive the select list. The court focused on the established principle of the finality of the selection process. The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of established precedents and legal principles.

Key Takeaways

• A select list for a government job is exhausted once an appointment is made from that list.
• The subsequent dismissal of an appointed candidate does not revive the select list.
• A vacancy arising after the dismissal of an appointed candidate is treated as a fresh vacancy and must be filled through a fresh selection process.
• Fraudulent appointment does not automatically revive the select list for the next candidate in line.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the original application filed by the respondent seeking appointment to the post of postman. There were no other specific directions given.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that once an appointment is made from a select list, the list is exhausted, and subsequent vacancies arising due to dismissal or otherwise should be treated as fresh vacancies to be filled through a fresh selection process. This judgment reinforces the principle established in Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited v Delson Davis P and clarifies that a fraudulent appointment does not revive the select list.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. G Ramesh clarifies that a select list for a government job is exhausted once an appointment is made, and the subsequent dismissal of the appointed candidate does not revive the select list. This decision reinforces the finality of the selection process and ensures that future vacancies are filled through fresh selection processes. The Court emphasized that the fraudulent nature of the initial appointment does not automatically entitle the next candidate on the list to an appointment.