PETITIONER: UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH Vs. RESPONDENT: DILBAGH SINGH AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT03/11/1992 BENCH: [J.S. VERMA, YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] ACT: Civil Services; Chandigarh Transport Undertaking-Conductors-Selection for appointment-Constitution of Selection Board-Select list prepared-Criticism of favouritism and nepotism in awarding marks at Interview-Confirmed on examination by Administration though corruption charges not established- however selection unfair and injudicious-Administration ordering cancellation of select list and constituting new Selection Board-Validity of-Non affording of opportunity to Members of Selection Board and selected candidates-Effect of. HEADNOTE: For filling up the posts of 32 vacancies of conductors in the Transport Undertaking under it, the appellant requested the Employment Exchange to sponsor names of eligible candidates and constituted a Selection board to prepare a Select list. The Selection Board interviewed 446 candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and prepared a Select List of 32 candidates on the basis of marks awardable for educational qualifications and performance at the interview. There was criticism that the select list was an amalgum of favouritism, nepotism and even corruption resorted to by members of the Selection board. The appellant got the select list examined which revealed that the select list was not prepared by the members of the Selection board fairly and judiciously, in that, the members had taken undue advantage of awarding marks in the interview to favour candidates of their choice although there was no evidence of corruption. Hence the appellant decided to constitute a new Selection Board to prepare fresh select list on the basis of only 15 per cent marks awardable to candidates or pull down merited candidates. Accordingly, the appellant cancelled the select list of candidates constituted a new Selection Board to prepare a fresh select list from out of candidates including those who had been interviewed by the earlier Selection Board and the criteria to be followed was that 85% marks would be awardable for educational qualifications and 15% marks for performance in interview. When the newly constituted Selection Board was about to interview the candidates, the respondents whose names found place in the cancelled select list approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking the setting aside of the order cancelling the select list and constituting a new Board. The Tribunal, on the ground of non-affording of opportunity to the members of the Selection Board before cancelling the select list, set aside the order issued by the appellant and directed the appellant to appoint in the available vacancies the candidates from the cancelled select list in preference to candidates from the select list prepared by the newly constituted Selection Board. Beingaggrieved by the Tribunal's order the appellant preferred the present appeal by special leave. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that affording of an opportunity to the members of the Selection Board before cancelling the select list being neither a requirement of law nor a requirement of any of the principles of natural justice, it could not have been made the sole ground for setting aside the order issued by the appellant. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the select list of candidates prepared by the earlier Selection Board has been cancelled by the appellant though there was no proof of corruption charges against the members of the Selection Board; and that an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the candidates in the select list before it was cancelled. Allowing the appeal, this court, HELD: 1. The order made by the appellant- Administration cancelling the select list cannot but be regarded athe right and just one. Such an order cannot be vitiated on the ground that it had been made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the members of the Selection Board who had prepared it. Further, such an order cannot be vitiated either because no direct evidence was made available to prove corruption charges against the members of the Selection Board in the matter of award of interview marks by them so as to tilt the balance in favour of candidates with poor educational qualifications and against the candidates with high educational qualifications or because there was no opportunity of hearing afforded to the candidates in theselect list to sustain it before its cancellation by the appellant-Administration. [318-c-f] 2.Affording of an opportunity of hearing by an Administration to the members of a Selection Board constituted by it, before cancelling a dubious select list of candidates for appointment to civil posts prepared by such Selection Board is not and cannot be a requirement of either law or any principle of natural justice. It is so for the reason that no member of a Selection Board. Besides, there is no personal right or interest of any member of a Selection Board which could be adversely affected by the Administration cancelling a select list of candidates prepared by the Selection Board when it is found to have been prepared by the Selection Board, in unfair and injudicious manner. [318-G; H 319-A] 3. The select list, which was cancelled by the appellant-Administration was found by it to have been prepared in unfair and injudicious manner, in that the interview marks purported to have been awarded by the members of the Selection Board for the performance of candidates at their interview were either inflated to push up the candidates who had got poor marks for their educational qualifications or deflated to pull down the candidates who had got high marks for their educational qualifications. That select list was also found to have been prepared without adopting common eligibility criteria for all candidates. when the said reasons formed the basis for the appellant-Administration to cancel the select list, the fact that charges of corruption levelled against the members of the Selection Board in the preparation of that select list had not been established by direct evidence produced in that regard, can make no difference. [319-E-H] 4. Since it is accepted that a candidate who finds a place in the select list as a candidate selected for appointment to a civil post, does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific Rule entitling him for such appointment and he could be aggrieved by hes non-appointment only when the Administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a necessary concomitant that such candidate even if he has a legitimate expectation of being appointed in such posts due to his name finding a place in the select list of candidates, cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily.[321-B,C] Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India, JT (1991) 2 SC 380, relied on. JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4649 of
1992.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.1991 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in Regn. No. OA-
139-CH of 1990.
Raj Birbal for the appellant.
S.S. Nijjar, Bhal Singh Malik and Vishal Malik for the
Respondents.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATACHALA, J. Leave granted.
The short question arising for our decision in this
Appeal is, whether the Order by which the Chandigarh
Administration cancelled the select list of candidates for
appointment as Conductors in the Chandigarh Transport
Undertaking (CTU) prepared by a Selection Board constituted
therefor, because of its view of that select list not having
been prepared in a fair and judicious manner, was liable to
be interfered with by the Central Administrative Tribunal
(CAT) on the ground of that Order having not been made after
affording an opportunity of hearing thereon to the members
of the concerned Selection Board.
The facts giving rise to the said question lie in a
narrow compass. In the year 1989, there arose 32 vacancies
of conductors in CTU of Chandigarh was required to sponsor
the names of eligible candidates while a three-member
Selection Board constituted by the Chandigarh Administration
was required to prepare a select list of 32 candidates out
of such candidates. That selection Board interviewed as many
as 446 candidates so sponsored by the Regional Employment
Exchange and prepared a select list of 32 candidates on the
basis of marks awardable for their educational
qualifications plus the marks awarded for their performance
at the interview, a criteria which was said to have been
followed by a Selection board constituted for a similar
purpose in the Year 1953. That criteria, although required
the award of marks for the educational qualification
possessed by a candidate upto 110, enabled every member of
the Selection Committee to award marks for such candidate’s
performance at the interview upto 20. The select list of 32
candidates meant to fill the 32 vacancies of conductors in
CTU, when was announced on September 11,1989, it invited
severe criticism from the members of both the public and the
Press as to the role of the members of t he Selection Board
in the matter of its preparation. The select list, according
to the criticism, was the amalgum of favourtism. nepotism
and even corruption resorted to by the members of the
Selection Board. The Chandigarh Administration which could
not ignore such criticism, got examined the select list with
reference to the marks awardable to the candidates for
their educational qualification and the marks awarded by the
members of the Selection Board to the candidates for their
performance at the interview had brought into select list
the least qualified candidates who had been awarded least
marks for marks for their educational qualifications. Such
examination also revealed that uniform standards had not
been applied to app candidates by the Selection Board in
their selection. These revelations, compelled the Chandigarh
Administration to conclude that the select list of
candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU had not been
prepared by the members of the Selection Board fairly and
judiciously in that those members had taken undue advantage
of the marks awardable by them at the interview to favour
the candidates of their choice although there was no
clinching evidence of corruption attributable to the
members. This situation made the Chandigarh Administration
to think of cancellation of the dubious select list prepared
by the Selection Board and of the constitution of a new
Selection Board to prepare a fresh select list on the basis
of only 15 per cent interview marks awardable to candidates
as against 30 per cent interview marks awardable earlier,
lest the power of the Selection Board to award interview
marks may be utilised either to pull up unmerited candidates
or pull down the merited candidates. Consequently, the
Chandigarh Administration made an order of cancelling the
select list of candidates for appointment as conductors
prepared by the Selection Board and published on September
11,1989, and constituted a new Selection Board to prepare a
fresh select list of candidates including those who had been
interviewed by the earlier Selection Board, according to the
fresh selection criteria with 85 per cent marks awardable
for educational qualifications of candidates and 15 per cent
marks awardable for their performance at interview.
The newly constituted Selection Board when was about to
interview the eligible candidates for selection as conductor
for CTU, the Respondents in this Appeal, whose names had
found places in the cancelled select list of candidates,
filed applications before CAT seeking the setting aside of t
he aforesaid order made by the Chandigarh Administration by
which it had cancelled the select list prepared by the
earlier Selection Board and directed the newly constituted
Selection Board to prepare a fresh select list of candidates
on the basis of altered criteria of marks. CAT which
entertained those applications, has by its Judgment dated
May 27,1991 not merely set aside that part of the impugned
order of the Chandigarh Administration by which it had
cancelled the earlier select list but also directed the
Chandigarh Administration by which it had cancelled to
earlier select list but also directed the Chardigarh
Administration to appoint in the available vacancies of
conductors in CTU the candidates from the cancelled select
list in preference to candidates selected as conductors in
the select list prepared by the fresh Selection Board. The
Chandigarh Administration, which felt aggrieved by this
Judgment of CAT has preferred this Appeal by special leave.
In its judgment under Appeal, the CAT has, no doubt,
expressed its reactions to the views of the Chandigarh
Administration as to t he charge of corruption levelled
against the members of the earlier Selection Board in the
matter of preparation of select list of candidates by it and
the percentage of marks awardable to candidates for their
performance at interview while examining the challenge
directed against the order made by the Chandigarh
Administration cancelling that select list and requiring the
preparation of a fresh select list. Yet, those reactions are
not made use of by the CAT as grounds for setting aside the
order of Chandigarh Administration impugned before it. The
sole ground, has been from the Judgment, which has weighed
with the CAT for setting aside that part of the impugned
order of Chandigarh Administration by which it had can
called the select list of candidates prepared by the earlier
Selection Board in the non-affording by the Chandigarh
Administration of an opportunity of hearing to the members
of its Selection Board before cancelling the select list of
candidates prepared by them.
It was contended on behalf of the Appellant – the
Chandigarh Administration-that affording of an opportunity
of hearing to the members of the earlier Selection Board
before cancelling their dubious select list of candidates
for appointment as conductors in CTU, being neither a
requirement of law nor a requirement of any principle of
natural Justice, the CAT could not have made it the sole
ground for setting aside of the order by which the Appellant
had cancelled such select list and hence the Judgment of CAT
under appeal based on such untenable ground required to be
set aside. The learned counsel for Respondents-Candidates in
the select list cancelled by the Chandigarh Administration,
however, did not choose to urge that the ground of non-
affording of an opportunity by the Chandigarh Administration
to the members of the selection Board before ordering
cancellation of their select list, was a valid ground on
which the CAT could have rested its Judgment under appeal.
But, he contended, rather very streneously, that the
Judgment of CAT under appeal was required to be sustained
for the reason that the cancellation of the select list of
candidates prepared by the earlier Selection Board had been
made by the Appellant (Chandigarh Administration) without
proof of corruption charges levelled against the members of
that Selection Board in that matter of selection of
candidates and further without affording an opportunity of
hearing to the candidates in the select list to sustain the
same.
We shall now proceed to examine the sustainability or
otherwise of the rival contentions. The Judgment of CAT
itself refers to the enquiry got conducted by Chandigarh
Administration about the select list of 32 candidates as
prepared by its Selection Board. Such enquiry revealed that
the members of the Selection Board. Such enquiry revealed
that the members of the Selection Board had made use of the
interview marks awardable by them for performance of
candidates at interview to eliminate merited candidates from
the list and to bring in unmerited candidates, is a matter
adverted to in the said Judgment. No doubt, the Chandigarh
Administration (Appellant) has found that there was no
direct evidence of corruption produced against the members
of the Selection Board for the favour they had shown in the
matter of awarding high interview marks to unmerited
candidates. Yet, having regard to the systematic manner of
award by the Selection Board of high interview marks to
candidates with low marks got for their educational
qualifications and of low interview marks to candidates with
high marks got for their educational qualifications, the
Chandigarh Administration discerned the tilting of balance
by the Selection Board in favour of candidates with poor
qualifications and against candidates with high
qualifications. Consequently, it concluded that the
Selection Board had not prepared to select list of
candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU, in a fair
and judicious manner. When the select list prepared by the
Selection Board was thus regarded by the Chandigarh
Administration as a dubious select list, it cancelled that
select list and constituted a new Selection Board to prepare
a fresh select list of candidates out of the competing
candidates including the candidates whose cases were
considered by the earlier Selection Board, on a fresh
selection criteria which provided for award of as large as
85 percent marks for educational qualifications of
candidates and for award of as little as 15 percent for
performance of candidates at interview, by making an order
in that regard. The order so made by the Chandigarh
Administration cannot but be regarded as the right and the
just one. Such an order, as is held by CAT, cannot be
vitiated on the ground that it had been made without
affording an opportunity of hearing to the members of the
Selection Board who had prepared it. Further, such an order
cannot be vitiated either because no direct evidence was
made available to prove corruption charges against the
members of the Selection Board in the matter of award of
interview marks by them so as to tilt the balance in favour
of candidates with poor educational qualifications and
against the candidates with high educational qualifications
or because there was no opportunity of hearing afforded to
the candidates in the select list to sustain it before its
cancellation by the Chandigarh Administration.
Affording of an opportunity of hearing by an
Administration to the members of a Selection Board
Constitute by it, before cancelling a dubious select list of
candidates for appointment to civil posts prepared by such
Selection Board is not and cannot be requirement of either
law or any principle of natural justice. It is so for the
reason that no member of a selection Board acquires any
vested right or interest in sustaining a select list
prepared by the Selection Board. Besides, there is no
personal right or interest of any member of a Selection
Board which could be adversely effected, by the
Administration cancelling a select list of candidates
prepared by Selection Board when it is found to have been
prepared by the selection Board in unfair and injudicious
manner. Therefore, there can arise no need to any
Administration to afford an opportunity of hearing to the
members of the Selection Board before cancelling a dubious
select list of candidates for appointment to civil posts
prepared by it. Hence, we must hold that the CAT was wholly
wrong in setting aside the Chandigarh Administration’s
order by which the dubious select list of candidates for
appointment as conductors in CTU prepared by Selection Board
constituted by it had been cancelled, on its erroneous view
that non-affording of an opportunity of hearing tot the
members of the Selection Board before cancelling its select
list had vitiated that Order. This would be our answer tot
he question adverted to at the outset.
Coming to the contentions of the learned counsel for
Respondents (selectees in the cancelled select list) that
the Chandigarh Administartion when had found no direct
evidence which could establish charges of corruption
levelled against the members of the Selection Board in the
matter of preparation of select list of conductors for
appointments as conductors in its CTU, it should not have
made an order cancelling the select list, all that could be
said is, that failure on the part of complainants to
establish charges of corruption levelled against the members
of the Selection Board could not have saved the select list,
if it was otherwise found to be dubious. The select list,
which was cancelled by the Chandigarh Administration was
found by it to have been prepared in unfair and injudicious
manner, in that the interview marks purported to have been
awarded by the members of the Selection Board for the
performance of candidates at their interview were either
inflated to push up the candidates who had got poor marks
for their educational qualifications or deflated to pull
down the candidates who had got high marks for their
educational qualifications. That select list was also found
to have been prepared without adopting common eligibility
criteria, for all candidates. When the said reasons formed
the basis for the Chandigarh Administration to cancel the
select list of the Selection Board, the fact that charges of
corruption levelled against the members to the Selection
Board in the preparation of that select list had not been
established by direct evidence produced in that regard, can
make no difference.
What remains for our consideration is that contention
of the learned counsel for Respondents that the Respondents
who were the selectes in the select list should have been
heard by the Chandigarh Administration before it cancelled
that list as a dubious one. According to learned counsel,
non-affording of an opportunity of hearing to the
Respondents- Selectees before the select list in which they
had found places as selected condidates for appointment in
the vacant civil posts of conductors in CTU should be
regarded by us a s a sufficient ground not to disturb the
Judgment of the CAT under appeal, although the Judgment
itself is not rendered on that basis. The contention of
learned counsel on our view, misconceived and hence calls to
be rejected.
In Shankarasan Das v. Union of India, reported in JT
(1991) 2 SC 380, a Constitution Bench of this Court which
had occasion to examine the question whether a candidate
seeking appointment to a civil post can be regarded to have
acquired an indefeasible right to appointment in such post
merely because of the appearance of his name in the merit
list (select list) of candidates for such post has answered
the question in the negative by enunciating the correct
legal position thus:
“it is not correct to say that if a
number of vacancies are notified
for appointment and adequate number
of condidates are found fit, the
successful candidates acquire an
indefeasible right to b appointment
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 u p 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
the State of Haryana v. Subbash
Chander
Marwaha and others. [1974] 1 SCR
165; Miss Neelima Shangla v. State
of Haryana and others, [1986] 4 SCC
268, or Jitendra Kumar and others
v. State of Punjab and others:
[1985] 1 SCR 899.”
If we have regard to the above enunciation that a
candidate who finds a place in the select list as a
candidate selected for appointment to a civil post, does not
acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such
posting the absence of any specific Rule entitling him for
such appointment and he could be aggrieved by his non-
appointment only when the Administration does so either
arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a
necessary concomitant that such candidate even if has a
legitimate expectation of being appointed in such posts due
to his name finding a place in the select list of
candidates, cannot claim to have a right to be heard before
such select list is cancelled for bona fide and valid
reasons and not arbitrarily: In the instant case, when the
Chandigarh Administration which received the complaints
about the unfair and injudicious manner in which select list
of candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU was
prepared by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose,
found those complaints to be well founded on an enquiry got
made in that regard, we are unable to find that the
Chandigarh Administration had acted either arbitrarily or
without bona fide and valid reasons in cancelling such
0dubious select list. Hence, the contentions of the learned
counsel for the Respondents as to the sustainability of the
Judgment of CAT under appeal on the ground of non-affording
of an opportunity of hearing to the Respondents (candidates
in the select list) is a misconceived one and is
consequently rejected.
In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the
Judgment under appeal, and reject the applications made by
Respondents before CAT, Chandigarh. However, in the facts
and circumstances of this appeal, we make no order as to
costs.
G.N. Appeal allowed.