Date of the Judgment: January 17, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 34
Judges: S.A. Bobde, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.
Can a candidate claim a right to appointment based on a selection process that was later cancelled due to a government policy decision? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case involving the State of Manipur and individuals who were selected for the post of Assistant Lineman in 1999. The court examined whether the candidates had an indefeasible right to appointment, especially when the selection process was cancelled due to financial constraints faced by the state. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices S.A. Bobde, L. Nageswara Rao, and R. Subhash Reddy, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao authoring the opinion.
Case Background
In 1999, the Department of Electricity, Government of Manipur, began the process of selecting candidates for the position of Assistant Lineman. However, before the selection process could be completed, a complete ban on direct recruitment was imposed on November 6, 1999, due to financial difficulties in the state. This ban also froze the declaration of results for selections already conducted.
The respondents, who were candidates in the 1999 selection process, filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction to declare the results of the selection. The Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, disposed of the petition on August 11, 2000, directing the declaration of results within one month after the ban was lifted.
Subsequently, the State Government took a policy decision to downsize the workforce, terminating the services of those appointed on a direct recruitment, part-time, contract, ad hoc, substitute, and casual basis since 1999. This policy also cancelled the results of DPCs that had not been announced.
Another Writ Petition was filed by some respondents, arguing that the ban on direct recruitment could not justify the non-declaration of the 1999 selection results. The High Court initially directed the announcement of the results, but this was stayed by a Division Bench. The stay was later vacated, and the matter reached the Supreme Court, which directed the State to furnish the list of selected candidates to the High Court in a sealed cover.
The High Court later directed that appointments be made as per the merit list when the ban was lifted. This order was recalled after it was found to be contrary to the Supreme Court’s order.
Later, the State issued an advertisement for various posts, including 29 Assistant Lineman posts. The High Court directed the State not to fill these posts without deciding on the 155 posts advertised in 1999.
The Electricity Department was then divided into Manipur State Power Corporation Limited (MSPCL) and Manipur State Power Distribution Company Limited (MSPDCL). MSPCL invited applications for Junior Technical Assistants, a post the respondents claimed was equivalent to Assistant Lineman. The minimum qualification for this post was 10th standard, while it was 8th standard for the 1999 Assistant Lineman posts. The High Court initially restrained the State from filling 56 out of 100 advertised posts of Junior Technical Assistants, but this advertisement was later withdrawn.
A fresh notification for 680 posts at Grade-III and Grade-IV levels, including Junior System Assistants, was issued by MSPCL. The respondents then asserted their right to be appointed to these posts. The dispute was confined to 58 respondents who filed two Writ Petitions seeking the declaration of the 1999 selection results. The High Court directed the declaration of results within three weeks and the completion of appointments within four weeks, adjusting the selected candidates to the post of Junior System Assistants.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999 | Department of Electricity, Manipur initiates selection for Assistant Lineman posts. |
| November 6, 1999 | Complete ban on direct recruitment imposed by the State of Manipur. |
| August 11, 2000 | Gauhati High Court directs declaration of 1999 selection results after the ban is lifted. |
| March 19, 2001 | State Government decides to downsize workforce, canceling previous selections and banning further recruitment. |
| November 29, 2002 | Division Bench of High Court vacates stay on announcement of 1999 DPC results. |
| November 19, 2004 | High Court directs appointments based on the merit list once the ban is lifted, later recalled. |
| 2016 | High Court directs the appointment of the respondents to the post of Junior System Assistants. |
| January 17, 2019 | Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The respondents initially filed a Writ Petition in the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, seeking a direction to declare the results of the 1999 selection process for Assistant Lineman. The High Court directed the declaration of results after the ban on recruitment was lifted.
Subsequently, another Writ Petition was filed, arguing that the ban could not be a ground for not declaring the results. The High Court directed the announcement of results, which was initially stayed by a Division Bench, but the stay was later vacated.
The matter reached the Supreme Court, which directed the State to furnish the list of selected candidates to the High Court. The High Court then ordered that appointments be made as per the merit list when the ban was lifted. This order was later recalled as it was contrary to the Supreme Court’s direction.
The High Court, in the impugned order, directed the declaration of results of the 1999 selection and the appointment of the selected candidates to the post of Junior System Assistants. The State of Manipur appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to the judgment in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47], which established that there is no indefeasible right to appointment merely because a candidate is found fit in a selection process. The notification for recruitment is merely an invitation for qualified candidates to apply. Unless the recruitment rules specify, the State is not legally obligated to fill all or any of the vacancies. However, the State cannot act arbitrarily and must have bona fide reasons for not filling the vacancies.
Arguments
The respondents argued that they had a right to be appointed as Assistant Linemen based on the selection process conducted in 1999. They contended that the ban on direct recruitment could not be a valid reason for not declaring the results of the selection. They also argued that the successor entities of the Electricity Department were obligated to honor the selections made in 1999. They further asserted their right to be appointed to the post of Junior System Assistants, which they claimed was equivalent to the post of Assistant Lineman.
The State of Manipur contended that the selection process of 1999 was cancelled due to a policy decision taken in view of the financial crisis in the State. They argued that the respondents did not have an indefeasible right to appointment merely because they were selected. The State also pointed out that the policy decision dated March 19, 2001, which cancelled all previous selections and banned further recruitment, was not challenged by the respondents. The State argued that the decision was taken bona fide due to financial constraints and cannot be termed arbitrary.
| Submissions | Respondents’ Arguments | State of Manipur’s Arguments |
|---|---|---|
| Right to Appointment | ✓ Right to be appointed as Assistant Linemen based on the 1999 selection. | ✓ No indefeasible right to appointment merely because of selection. |
| Validity of Ban | ✓ Ban on direct recruitment cannot be a valid reason for not declaring results. | ✓ Selection process cancelled due to a policy decision because of financial crisis. |
| Obligation of Successor Entities | ✓ Successor entities of the Electricity Department are obligated to honor the 1999 selections. | ✓ Policy decision of March 19, 2001, cancelling selections was not challenged. |
| Equivalence of Posts | ✓ Right to be appointed to the post of Junior System Assistants as they are equivalent to Assistant Lineman. | ✓ Decision taken bona fide due to financial constraints and cannot be termed arbitrary. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the Respondents have any indefeasible right for appointment to the posts of Assistant Lineman on the basis of the selections made in the year 1999?
- Whether the High Court could have issued a direction for appointment of the Respondents as Junior System Assistants in the posts advertised on 11th May, 2016?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the Respondents have any indefeasible right for appointment to the posts of Assistant Lineman on the basis of the selections made in the year 1999? | No | The selection process was cancelled due to a bona fide policy decision by the government because of financial crisis. |
| Whether the High Court could have issued a direction for appointment of the Respondents as Junior System Assistants in the posts advertised on 11th May, 2016? | No | The respondents did not have a legal right to seek appointment as the selections were cancelled by the policy decision dated March 19, 2001. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47] | Supreme Court of India | Established that there is no indefeasible right to appointment merely because a candidate is found fit in a selection process. The State is not obligated to fill all advertised vacancies unless specified by recruitment rules. |
Judgment
| Submission | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Respondents’ claim of right to appointment based on 1999 selection. | Rejected. The court held that the selection process was cancelled due to a bona fide policy decision by the government because of financial crisis. |
| Respondents’ claim that the ban on recruitment was not a valid reason for not declaring results. | Rejected. The court held that the policy decision of the Government of Manipur dated 19th March, 2001 was bona fide and the Respondents cannot assert any right for appointment on the basis of the selections conducted in the year 1999. |
| Respondents’ claim that successor entities were obligated to honor 1999 selections. | Rejected. The court held that the decision dated 19th March, 2001 of the Appellant cancelling the selections conducted before that date had not been questioned by the Respondents. |
| Respondents’ claim to be appointed as Junior System Assistants. | Rejected. The court held that the Respondents do not have a legal right to seek appointment to the posts of Assistant Lineman as the selections stood cancelled by the policy decision dated 19th March, 2001. |
| Authority | How the Court Viewed the Authority |
|---|---|
| Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47] | The court relied on this case to reiterate that there is no indefeasible right to appointment merely because a candidate is found fit in a selection process. The State is not obligated to fill all advertised vacancies unless specified by recruitment rules. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the State Government had taken a bona fide policy decision to cancel the selection process due to financial constraints. The court emphasized that the government’s decision was not arbitrary and was a necessary measure to address the financial crisis. The court also noted that the respondents had not challenged the policy decision of March 19, 2001, which cancelled the selections.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Bona fide policy decision due to financial constraints | 60% |
| No indefeasible right to appointment | 30% |
| Policy decision not challenged by respondents | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court’s reasoning was thus heavily based on the legal principle that a selection process does not automatically confer a right to appointment, especially when the process is legitimately cancelled due to a policy decision.
The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because the policy decision was bona fide and the respondents had not challenged it. The final decision was based on the principle that the State has the right to make policy decisions, especially in times of financial crisis, and that a selection process does not guarantee appointment.
The Supreme Court held that there was sufficient justification for the Government of Manipur to ban recruitment due to the financial crisis. The court stated, “The policy decision of the Government of Manipur dated 19th March, 2001 was bona fide and the Respondents cannot assert any right for appointment on the basis of the selections conducted in the year 1999.”
The Court further clarified that “Even assuming that the successor entities of the Electricity Department have an obligation to defend the actions and decisions of the Electricity Department, it is relevant to note that the decision dated 19th March, 2001 of the Appellant cancelling the selections conducted before that date had not been questioned by the Respondents.”
The Court concluded that, “We are unable to agree with the High Court’s direction for appointment of the Respondents in the posts of Junior System Assistants which were advertised in 2016.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ A selection process does not automatically guarantee a right to appointment.
- ✓ The State has the authority to cancel a selection process due to bona fide policy decisions, especially in times of financial crisis.
- ✓ Candidates must challenge policy decisions that affect their selection process; failure to do so can weaken their claim for appointment.
- ✓ Successor entities of a government department are bound by the policy decisions of the original department.
This judgment reinforces the principle that the State has the right to make policy decisions, especially in times of financial crisis, and that a selection process does not guarantee appointment. It also highlights the importance of challenging policy decisions that affect one’s rights.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, thereby denying the respondents’ claim for appointment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a selection process does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, especially when the selection process is cancelled due to a bona fide policy decision of the government. This judgment reaffirms the principle established in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47] and does not introduce any new legal principles.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Manipur, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The court held that the respondents did not have an indefeasible right to appointment based on the 1999 selection process, which was cancelled due to a bona fide policy decision taken by the government due to financial constraints. The court emphasized that a selection process does not guarantee appointment and that the State has the right to make policy decisions, especially in times of financial crisis.