Case Note & Summary
The Superintendent of Post Offices, Hanamkonda issued a notification on 4 November 2013 inviting applications for a departmental examination for the post of postman. The result was declared on 20 December 2013, and G Vijender was selected and appointed as postman, with the respondent G Ramesh being second in the merit list. Upon receiving a complaint that G Vijender had obtained selection by fraudulent means, he was placed under suspension on 24 January 2014 and later dismissed from service after a departmental enquiry on 29 April 2016. The respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking appointment in place of G Vijender. The Tribunal initially dismissed the application as premature but later, on 9 November 2017, held that the respondent had a right to be appointed and directed his appointment. The High Court affirmed this order. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that once the selection process was completed and G Vijender was appointed, the Select List stood exhausted. The subsequent dismissal of the appointed candidate did not revive the Select List, and the vacancy must be treated as a fresh vacancy to be filled in accordance with rules. The Court relied on the principle in Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited v. Delson Davis P. The impugned orders of the Tribunal and High Court were set aside, and the respondent's application for appointment was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Selection Process - Exhaustion of Select List - Once a candidate is selected and appointed, the Select List stands exhausted; subsequent dismissal of the appointed candidate does not revive the Select List or create a right in the next candidate to be appointed - Held that the vacancy arising after appointment must be treated as a fresh vacancy to be filled in accordance with rules (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Select List revives upon dismissal of the appointed candidate, entitling the next candidate in merit to appointment
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order of High Court dated 8 February 2018 set aside; Original Application filed by respondent seeking appointment to post of postman dismissed; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Select List exhausted upon appointment
- subsequent dismissal does not revive Select List
- no vested right to appointment after selection process completed
Case Details
Civil Appeal No 140 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 1020 of 2019)
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hrishikesh Roy
Vikramjit Banerjee (ASG) for appellants, M Venkanna for respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court order affirming Tribunal's direction to appoint respondent as postman after dismissal of selected candidate
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought setting aside of High Court and Tribunal orders directing appointment of respondent
Filing Reason
Appellants challenged the direction to appoint respondent after the selected candidate was dismissed
Previous Decisions
Tribunal (9 Nov 2017) directed appointment of respondent; High Court (8 Feb 2018) dismissed writ petition affirming Tribunal order
Issues
Whether the Select List revives upon dismissal of the appointed candidate, entitling the next candidate in merit to appointment
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants: Once selection process completed with appointment, Select List exhausted; subsequent dismissal does not revive it; no vested right to appointment (relying on Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited v. Delson Davis P)
Respondent: Appointed candidate secured appointment through fraud, so appointment void ab initio; respondent should be appointed as next in merit
Ratio Decidendi
Once a selection process is complete and appointment made, the Select List stands exhausted. Subsequent dismissal of the appointed candidate does not revive the Select List or create a right in the next candidate to be appointed. Any vacancy arising after appointment must be treated as a fresh vacancy to be filled in accordance with rules.
Judgment Excerpts
Once a candidate had been selected upon the conclusion of the selection process and was appointed to the post, the Select List stood exhausted.
The subsequent dismissal from service of the appointed candidate in 2016 would not either revive the Select List or result in the appointment of the respondent.
Procedural History
Notification for postman examination issued 4 Nov 2013; result declared 20 Dec 2013; G Vijender selected and appointed; complaint of fraud led to suspension on 24 Jan 2014; respondent moved CAT; Tribunal dismissed OA as premature; G Vijender dismissed on 29 Apr 2016; respondent filed fresh OA; Tribunal on 25 Nov 2016 directed consideration; representation rejected; respondent moved Tribunal again; Tribunal on 9 Nov 2017 directed appointment; High Court dismissed writ petition on 8 Feb 2018; Supreme Court allowed appeal on 9 Jan 2020.
