Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court disposed of appeals by Appellants against the Calcutta High Court's judgment affirming the Central Administrative Tribunal's order directing appointment of the respondents to the post of Plant Attendant. The background involved a recruitment process initiated by an advertisement dated 16.10.2007 for 90 posts (later increased to 200). A written examination was conducted on 23.03.2008 in which 29,459 candidates appeared; 1,530 qualified and were shortlisted. After interviews, 194 candidates were appointed. In January 2009, the respondents filed a writ petition seeking disclosure of marks and results, later transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 27.03.2018, held that marks were not disclosed, records were not preserved, and there was no evidence that respondents failed; it directed appointment with age relaxation and prospective benefits. The High Court dismissed the appellants' writ petition. The Supreme Court considered arguments that the written examination was outsourced, no rule required publication of marks, and the respondents never sought appointment. The Court held that a candidate has no indefeasible right to appointment from a select list, and mere non-production of records does not justify an inference that respondents passed. Since the respondents did not seek appointment in their writ petition and qualifications were revised in 2008, the direction for appointment was unsustainable. However, considering the peculiar facts and the respondent no.1's pursuit of litigation since 2008, the Court directed the appellants to pay Rs.5,00,000 to respondent no.1. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Right to Appointment - No Indefeasible Right - A candidate whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right to appointment in the absence of any specific rule entitling such appointment. The court held that the respondents had no right to appointment as they were not shown to have passed the written examination. (Paras 13-14) B) Evidence - Adverse Inference - Non-production of Records - Bona Fide Explanation - Mere non-production of records due to destruction after completion of recruitment does not justify drawing an adverse inference that the respondents had passed the written test, especially when the rules did not prescribe preservation period. (Paras 15-16) C) Service Law - Recruitment - Transparency - Publication of Marks - Neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement required publication of marks of all candidates. The selection process was not vitiated for lack of transparency. (Paras 14-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents were entitled to appointment to the post of Plant Attendant despite not being shown to have passed the written examination and in the absence of any rule requiring publication of marks.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and judgment of the High Court and Tribunal insofar as they directed appointment of respondents to the post of Plant Attendant. The appeals were disposed of with a direction to the appellants to pay Rs.5,00,000 to respondent no.1 within two months. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- No indefeasible right to appointment from select list
- adverse inference not drawn from non-production of records
- bona fide destruction of records
- no requirement to publish marks of all candidates
