Date of the Judgment: 14th February 2008
Citation: [Citation details will be added when available]
Judges: H.K. Sema and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Does being on a waiting list for a government job guarantee you the position? The Supreme Court addressed this important question in a case involving the U.P. Public Service Commission. The court clarified that merely being on a waiting list does not give a candidate an automatic right to be appointed. This judgment is crucial for understanding the rights of candidates in the public service sector. The bench comprised Justices H.K. Sema and Markandey Katju.
Case Background
In 1983, the U.P. Public Service Commission issued an advertisement to fill 301 positions for Naib Tehsildars. The results were announced on September 22, 1988, with 297 candidates being recommended and subsequently appointed. However, 40 of these recommended candidates did not join within the stipulated time, and 6 appointees resigned, resulting in 46 vacant posts. To fill these vacancies, the department recommended 46 candidates from the waiting list, including 32 general candidates, 6 from the OBC category, and 8 from the SC category, all of whom were appointed.
Aggrieved by not being appointed, the respondents filed a writ petition in February 1992, claiming their right to appointment from the waiting list. They alleged that the appellants had illegally appointed 12 individuals who had not even appeared for the examination and were not on the merit list. The appellants filed a counter-affidavit rebutting these claims.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1983 | Advertisement issued for filling 301 posts of Naib Tehsildar by U.P. Public Service Commission. |
| September 22, 1988 | Results declared; 297 candidates recommended and appointed. |
| Subsequent to September 22, 1988 | 40 recommended candidates did not join; 6 appointees resigned, creating 46 vacancies. |
| February 1992 | Respondents filed a writ petition claiming appointment from the waiting list, alleging illegal appointments. |
| November 15, 2000 | Order passed by the High Court (details not specified in the provided text). |
| February 14, 2008 | Supreme Court judgment delivered, allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court order. |
Arguments
The respondents (original petitioners) argued that:
- The U.P. Public Service Commission acted illegally by appointing 12 individuals who did not appear for the examination and were not on the merit list.
- They were entitled to be appointed from the waiting list against the 46 vacancies that arose.
The appellants (U.P. Public Service Commission) argued that:
- The allegations made by the respondents were vague and unsubstantiated. The respondents failed to provide the names of the 12 allegedly illegal appointees or demonstrate that they (the respondents) were higher on the waiting list than those appointed.
- Candidates on a waiting list do not have an indefeasible right to appointment.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the appointment of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 based on their position on the waiting list.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the appointment of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 based on their position on the waiting list. | No. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order was not in accordance with the law. | The Supreme Court emphasized that even recommended candidates do not have an indefeasible right to appointment. The respondents’ case was weaker because they were allegedly lower on the waiting list than those who were appointed. The allegations of illegal appointments were vague and unsubstantiated. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the High Court. The Court reiterated that being on a waiting list does not grant a candidate an automatic right to appointment.
“By now it is well-settled principles of law that even a recommended candidate does not possess any indefeasible right. No enforceable right has accrued even to the recommended candidates.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Candidates on a waiting list for public service positions do not have a guaranteed right to appointment.
- ✓ Appointment from a waiting list depends on various factors, including the availability of vacancies and the suitability of candidates.
- ✓ Allegations of irregularities in appointments must be supported by specific evidence and proper identification of the individuals involved.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Uday Kumar Upadhyaya & Ors clarifies that candidates on a waiting list for public service appointments do not have an automatic right to be appointed. The Court emphasized that even recommended candidates do not possess an indefeasible right, and unsubstantiated allegations of illegal appointments cannot be the basis for a writ of mandamus.