Published on: 14 July 2023 at 01:20 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Shankarsan Dash V. Union of India (1991)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that a decision on the part of an employer whether to fill up the existing vacancies or not is within the domain of the Honourable Courts. It is held that Writ Jurisdiction has very narrow jurisdiction in the appointment matters only in the case of discrimination or arbitrariness.
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 bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
