Supreme Court Upholds Recruitment Rules for Municipal Posts: Mohd. Rashid vs. The Director, Local Bodies (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 15 January 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 13

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a recruitment process for municipal posts be challenged if the authorities initiate direct recruitment without first considering promotions and deputation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of Administrative Officers/Assistant Assessors and Collectors in Delhi Municipal Corporations. The court examined the validity of direct recruitment when the rules prioritize filling posts through promotion and deputation. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

The case originated from a challenge by Lower Division Clerks and Upper Division Clerks/Head Clerks, who were seeking promotions to the posts of Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor and Collector. They contested Advertisement No. 3 of 2013, dated 12th September 2013, which initiated direct recruitment for these posts. The appellants argued that the Recruitment Rules of 2013 mandated that these posts should first be filled by promotion, and only if that failed, by direct recruitment.

The candidates had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) against the advertisement for direct recruitment. The Tribunal dismissed their application, stating that the recruitment process was not unconstitutional, but promotions should also be considered. The High Court of Delhi, however, ruled in favor of the candidates, holding that the respondents had not followed the Recruitment Rules by not first attempting to fill the vacancies through promotion, transfer, or deputation before resorting to direct recruitment. The High Court also noted that no effort was made to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) or explore the possibilities of filling the vacancies through transfer or deputation.

The advertisement was for 30 vacancies, with reservations for Other Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and a horizontal reservation for physically handicapped candidates.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the appellants, stating that the recruitment process was not against the constitutional provisions. However, the Tribunal also noted that the promotion process should not be overlooked. The High Court of Delhi, in its judgment, reversed the Tribunal’s decision, holding that the Municipal Corporations had not adhered to the Recruitment Rules. The High Court observed that the corporations had not made sufficient efforts to fill the vacancies through promotion, transfer, or deputation before advertising for direct recruitment. The High Court also noted that no DPC was convened to consider promotions, nor were possibilities of filling the vacancies by transfer or deputation explored.

Legal Framework

The core of the legal framework in this case is the amended Recruitment Rules of 2013 for the posts of Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor and Collector. The amended rule specifies the method of recruitment as follows:

“10. Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/absorption and % of the vacancies to be filled by various method. i) 50% by promotion, failing which by direct recruitment. ii) 50% by deputation, failing which by direct recruitment.”

This rule mandates that 50% of the posts are to be filled by promotion, and if that is not possible, then by direct recruitment. Similarly, 50% of the posts are to be filled by deputation, and if that is not possible, then by direct recruitment. The Recruitment Rules provide a clear preference for filling the posts through promotion and deputation before resorting to direct recruitment.

Arguments

The appellants, who were aspirants for direct recruitment, argued that the Municipal Corporations should have first exhausted the options of filling the vacancies through promotion and deputation before resorting to direct recruitment. They contended that the advertisement for direct recruitment was premature and violated the Recruitment Rules.

The Municipal Corporations, on the other hand, argued that they were following the Recruitment Rules and had initiated the process of filling the posts through promotion and deputation. They submitted that the direct recruitment was only an alternative method to be adopted if the posts could not be filled through the primary methods of promotion and deputation. The Corporations also asserted that the selection process was not complete and hence the appellants could not claim any right to appointment.

The appellants relied on the Recruitment Rules which clearly state that the posts are to be filled by promotion and deputation first and only if the same is not possible, direct recruitment can be resorted to.

The Municipal Corporations relied on the fact that the recruitment process was not completed and hence the appellants have no right to claim appointment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but the core issue was whether the Municipal Corporations could resort to direct recruitment without first exhausting the options of promotion and deputation as per the Recruitment Rules.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

• Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47] – The Supreme Court of India cited this case to reiterate that a candidate whose name appears in the merit list does not have an indefeasible right to appointment. The notification for recruitment is merely an invitation for qualified candidates to apply and does not guarantee appointment.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47]* – The Supreme Court of India relied on this case to emphasize that candidates on a merit list do not have an absolute right to appointment, and the state is not obligated to fill all vacancies.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the Municipal Corporations were adhering to the Recruitment Rules, which provided for promotion and deputation as primary methods of filling the posts, with direct recruitment as an alternative. The Court also emphasized that the selection process was not complete, and thus, the appellants could not claim a vested right to appointment.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of the Recruitment Rules and the legal principle that a candidate on a merit list does not have an absolute right to appointment. The Court’s emphasis on the ongoing nature of the selection process also played a crucial role in its decision.

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations of the Recruitment Rules. The Court’s decision was based on the plain reading of the rules and the established legal principle regarding the rights of candidates on a merit list.

The Court held that the appellants, who were aspirants for direct recruitment, had no right to dispute the action of the Municipal Bodies to fill up the posts either by way of promotion or by deputation as such posts are being filled up in terms of the mandate of the Rules. It was also held that it is always open to the Municipal Bodies to fill up the vacant posts by way of direct recruitment after the posts by way of promotion and/or deputation quota are not filled up either on the basis of recruitment process already initiated or to be initiated afresh.

“It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed 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 up all or any of the vacancies.”

Key Takeaways

• Municipal bodies must adhere to the prescribed order of recruitment, prioritizing promotion and deputation before direct recruitment.
• Candidates who have applied for direct recruitment do not have an indefeasible right to appointment if the selection process is not complete.
• Merely appearing on a merit list does not guarantee appointment.
• The state is not obligated to fill all vacancies, but must act bona fide and without arbitrariness.

This judgment reinforces the importance of following recruitment rules and the established legal principle that candidates on a merit list do not have an absolute right to appointment. It also clarifies that direct recruitment can only be resorted to after exhausting the options of promotion and deputation.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Municipal Corporations must adhere to the Recruitment Rules, which prioritize filling posts through promotion and deputation before resorting to direct recruitment. The judgment also reiterates the established legal principle that candidates on a merit list do not have an absolute right to appointment. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision that the Municipal Corporations must follow the Recruitment Rules by prioritizing promotion and deputation before direct recruitment. The Court also emphasized that candidates who have applied for direct recruitment do not have a vested right to appointment if the selection process is not complete. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to recruitment rules and the established legal principle that candidates on a merit list do not have an absolute right to appointment.