S.R.Singh - (1.) CANCELLATION of a select list prepared on 31-7-1986 and rejection of representations preferred against the cancellation are sought to be quashed by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners amongst others were selected for appointment to the post of Sinchpal' and the select list was drawn on 31-7-1986. However, appointments on the basis at the said select list were not made and it was decided to hold a fresh selection as suggested by the District Magistrate, Deoria vide letter dated 25-8-1986. The petitioner no. 1 had earlier filed a writ petition, it being writ petition No. 11386 of 1987 for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue letters of appointment based on the afore stated selection. The writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 12-4-1989 with an observation that the Chief Engineer (Gandak) Irrigation Department, Gorakhpur could be approached by means of a representation to be decided by him, as far as possible, within a period of two months from the date of filing representation. The Chief Engineer was required to dispose of tie representation by means of a reasoned order. The Chief Engineer, however rejected the representation by a non- speaking order dated 17-11-1990. Thereafter another writ petition, it being writ petition No. 352 of 1991 was filled on behalf of the petitioners. The said writ petition was allowed with special cost assessed at Rs. 4.000/- to be paid by the Chief Engineer and the order dated 17-11-1990 of the Chief Engineer was quashed and the Chief Engineer was directed to decide the representation by speaking order. The representation has thereafter been rejected but by means of reasoned order dated 17-6-1993 which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.
(2.) A perusal of the impugned order dated 17 -8-1993 would indicate that the decision to make fresh selection was taken by the respondents, inter alia, on the grounds that the Rules regarding reservation in favour of scheduled caste candidates were not observed by Selection Committee; that selection list was signed by the Chairman alone and it was not signed by the two members nominated vide letter dated 2-4-1986; that the work charged and other employees working in the work charged establishment of department, though aligible, were not considered by the Interview committee even though they appeared before it and the selection in question had been made in negation of their rights. The questions which arise for consideration are: whether the petitioners acquired any right to be appointed as 'sinchpal' on the basis of select list in question ? whether the decision taken by the department to cancel the selection and to hold a fresh selection is justiciable and if so on what ground and thirdly, whether non-observance of audi alterem partem rule of principle of natural justice, in the instance case, vitiated the decision taken by the respondents to hold fresh selection in supersession of the selection on the basis of which the select list of 31-7- 1986 was drawan. It is now settled by catena of decisions that mere selection does not confer any right of appointment. In Rajendra Nath Gupta V. U. P. Hand- loom Corporation, 1985 UP LB EC- 1481 a Division Bench of this Court has held as under; "......The selection, it is well settled, does not clothe the petitioners with the legal right to get them selves appointed by the Corporation." In Jitendra Kumar v. State of [Punjab 1985 (1) SCC 122 where selection had been made by the Public Service Commission, the State Government did not find itself in agreement with the recommendation of the Commission. It was held by the Supreme Court that" the appellants could not assert legal right to be given appointment on the strength of the selection or recommendation made in their favour....."
(3.) IN Shankarasan Dash v. Union of INdia, JT 1991 (2) SC 380 the Supreme Court has ruled as under : "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 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..........." In State of Bihar v. The Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union, 1986, JT 1993 (6) SC 462, the Supreme Court has reffirmed the above proposition in the following words : "It is now well settled that a person who is selected does not, on account of being empanelled alone, acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment is at tide best a condition of eligibility for purposes of appointment, and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed unless relevant service rule says to the contrarary.";