NRIPENDRA MAHANTA Vs. THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts giving rise to this petition, in brief, are as follows. On the requisition sent by the Government of Assam to the Assam Public Service Commission ("Commission" for short), the Commission issued advertisement No.188 which was published in 'Dainik Asom' of 14.2.88 for filling in posts mentioned therein. Subject Matter Specialist (Plant Pathology) was one of the posts. The petitioner applied for the post of Subject Matter Specialist (Plant Pathology). The Commission fixed 20.12.88 and 21.12.88 for interview. By a letter dated 21.11.88, the Commission invited the petitioner for interview on 21.12.88. But the Commission received a letter dated 15.12.88 from the Government of Assam in which the Commission was requested to keep the interview for the post of Subject Matter Specialist (Plant Pathology) in abeyance until intimation from the Government as the Government had to take decision in view of financial crisis and ban on the creation of and filling in posts. Therefore, the Commission, under its letter dated 16.12.88, informed the petitioner and other candidates that the interview to be held on 20.12.88 and 21.12.88 would be kept in abeyance until further communication.

(2.) Mr. J.L. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that once the process of selection had started, namely, %A issuing the advertisement, it was not open to the Government as well as the Commission to freeze the process and, therefore, the Commission was bound to complete the process of selection.

(3.) An advertisement for post is only an invitation extended to the qualified candidates to apply for recruitment. It does not amount to offer or proposal which binds the Government to appoint in the sense that the origin of the Government service is contractual as has been held in Roshan Lal's case (AIR 1967 SC 1889). Therefore, a candidate on making an application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right to selection or appointment to the post in question. The function of the Commission in the context of the case is to select best available talent for appointment to the post in question. On the fact-position, it was not open to the Commission to ignore the communication of the Government to keep the interview in abeyance and to proceed with the process of the selection. For these reasons, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected.