State cannot ignore selecting panel and decline appointment on whims: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said although an empanelled or selected candidate can claim no right of appointment, yet the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims.

"Any decision taken not to appoint despite there being vacancies and a valid select list, obviously, is in the nature of a policy decision. It has to be borne in mind that securing public employment is the dream of many, who put their heart and soul to prepare for it," a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan said.

The court said that such a policy decision must be taken bona fide and on justifiable reason if the process is abandoned mid-way, and such decision must not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or the whims of the decision maker.

It also pointed out, nowadays, aspirants undertake rigorous study sessions as well as training modules to equip themselves, which also comes at a heavy cost.

Every process of recruitment necessarily involves substantial expenses, borne from the public exchequer and at the same time the aspirants for the posts cherish fond hopes of a bright and secure future, it said.

The court did not find it acceptable that the aspirants, not having an indefeasible or vested right of appointment, do not also have the right to question any decision adverse to their interest affecting achievement of their goals to secure public employment.

"Whether, and to what extent, any relief should be granted, must depend on the facts of each case," it said.

The court upheld the Assam government's decision of July 4, 2016 to cancel the recruitment process initiated in 2014 to fill up of 104 posts of constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force, after change of political regime following the State Assembly polls.

After going through the record, the bench said, "no person of reasonable prudence would be left in doubt that the process had a coat of discernible taint suggesting impropriety and bias, if not corruption."

Applying the test of proportionality, the decision taken by the successor government of cancelling the process initiated by the earlier government cannot be said to be so disproportionate and incommensurate with the illegalities or irregularities, the bench said.

It allowed the state government's appeal and quashed the High Court's judgments, which held the irregularities in the selection process can be rectified.

The state government said the selection was made on the basis of interview alone preceded by a physical test, and no written test was conducted.

Out of 104 selected candidates, 64 belonged to Kamrup (Metro) and Kamrup (Rural) districts. Not a single candidate was from 16 districts which included the Hill districts, the Barak Valley districts and the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) districts, having population of 1.60 Cr. The reservation rules were also not followed for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Tribes (Plain), etc.

The bench said it is not for the courts to interfere unless the process smacks of mala fides. However, the right to be considered for public employment being a fundamental right, it would be safe and prudent to have recruitment rules to govern the process of selection so that the best possible talent is appointed in public service, it emphasised.

"When corruption has been held to be a walk of life by certain responsible citizens of the country, it would have been desirable if the process of recruitment of 104 Constables were conducted after framing of recruitment rules and also prescribing a written examination to keep the process absolutely above board," the bench said.

The court allowed the state government to go ahead with the recruitment process afresh by framing rules with age relaxation to respondent candidates.