SHARMA, J. - (1.) CORE question emerges for consideration in this intra court appeal is as to whether the appellant herein had any legal right for being appointed against the post of Lab. Assistant (Radio and Television) advertised by the respondent District Education Officer (Boys) Dholpur (Rajasthan ).
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts, which are not in dispute, depict that an advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Lab. Assistant (Radio and Television ). The appellant applied and selected by the Selection Committee headed by the District Education officer. The Select List was published on the Notice Board on March 15, 1995. The appellant however was not offered any appointment. He filed writ petition questioning his non appointment. Learned Single Judge vide order dated October 28, 1998 dismissed the writ petition. The appellant is, thus, before us. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the reply to the writ petition filed by the respondents the only reason for withholding the appointment was narrated as "for certain administrative reasons. " In the additional affidavit, however, it was stated that the post of Lab. Assistant was made surplus. It is well settled that only because the name of a person appears in the select list, the same by itself may not be a ground for offering him an appointment. The selectee does not have any legal right of appointment, subject, inter alia, to bonafide action on the part of the State.
(3.) IN Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of INdia (1991) 3 SCC 47 the Apex Court indicated thus:- (Para 7) "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. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bonafide for appropriate reasons. . . " In R. S. Mittal vs. Union of India 1995 Supp (2) SCC 230, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under:- (Para 10) ". . . It is not doubt correct that a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected. He has a right to be considered for appointment. But at the same time the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims. Where a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, than, ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. " In Food Corporation of India vs. Bhanu Lodh (2005) 3 SCC 618, the Apex Court observed thus:- (Para 14) "merely because vacancies are notified the State is not obliged to fill up all the vacancies unless there is some provision to the contrary in the applicable rules. However, there is no doubt that the decision not to fill up the vacancies, has to be taken bonafide and must pass the test of reasonableness so as not to fail on touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. " ;