S. Velu vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar University

A. Kulasekaran, J.—The above writ petition is filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent viz., Manonmaniam

Sundaranar University rep. by its Registrar, Tirunelveli - 9 to act in accordance with their resolution dated 14.11.1997 dealing with the

appointment of the petitioner as Tabulator and consequently direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner to the permanent post of Tabulator in

the respondent University, regularise his services and pay salary and allowances to him in accordance to law.

Heard both sides. The petitioner and 14 other persons were sponsored by the employment exchange to the respondent/University to consider

them for appointment to the post of Tabulators. It is stated that the petitioner had participated in the typewriting test and precise writing test in the

first week of February 1997, the interview conducted on 25.02.1997, the petitioner and 14 others were selected and the selection list was placed

before the Syndicate on 01.03.1997 for approval and a resolution was also passed on 14.11.1997 by the Syndicate approving the name of the

petitioner and 14 others for appointment to the post of Tabulators, however, before appointment orders were issued, the persons who were

already working as Tabulators on adhoc basis in the respondent/university have filed W.P. No. 2591 of 1997 and 3190 of 1997 before this Court

against the selection of the petitioner and 14 others and obtained interim injunction and because of the interim order passed by this Court, the

petitioner and 14 others could not be appointed by the respondent. Among the said 14 persons, six of them have impleaded themselves as

respondents in the above said writ petitions but the petitioner failed to do so and the respondent/university also filed a petition in WMP No. 17800

of 1998 to vacate the interim order which was also allowed on 23.09.1998, however, in the said order, it was directed that the right of the said

persons would be considered subject to the result of the writ petitions. It is stated that the said writ petitions were also disposed of by this Court

on 21.12.2001 and after disposal of the same, the respondent constituted a committee and the said six persons and others including the petitioner

appeared and the committee submitted its report on 05.09.2002 and drawn a tentative seniority list as per the directions issued by this Court in the

above said writ petitions. Thereafter, the six persons, who got themselves impleaded in the writ petitions were appointed to the post of Tabulators.

It is stated that the committee refused to recommend the name of the petitioner and others since they have not impleaded themselves as parties in

the writ petitions, hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 28.01.2003.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits, which were extended to the other six persons; that

the petitioner has passed the typewriting test conducted in the month of February 1997, viva-voce on 25.02.1997 and he was selected along with

other 14 persons, his name was also sent to the Syndicate for approval which was also approved but appointment order was not issued because

of the interim order granted by this Court; that the petitioner failed to implead himself as a party in the writ petitions, which cannot be a reason for

denying appointment to the petitioner; that the petitioner also appeared before the committee constituted by the respondent, but the committee,

without any valid reasons not recommended the name of the petitioner and prayed for allowing the writ petition as prayed for.

Mr. Govardhanan, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was employed in the respondent university between 1997 and

January 1999 as mentioned below:

i) 03.09.1997 and 02.11.1997

ii) 04.11.1997 to 03.02.1998

iii) 23.02.1998 to 22.04.1998

iv) 08.06.1998 to 07.08.1998

v) 09.09.1998 to 08.11.1998

vi) 17.11.1998 and 16.01.1999

It is further stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent that in all, the petitioner worked for 209 days only and thereafter, the petitioner

admittedly stayed away from work and did not report to duty, inspite of the call memos dated 09.05.2000 and 05.12.2000 sent by the

respondent, for the obvious reason that he might have secured some alternative job, hence, it is not open to him to seek the remedy on par with the

said six persons; that the above said facts were also considered by the committee constituted by the respondent and submitted its report on

05.09.2002 but the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said report of the committee but filed this writ petition belatedly and prayed for

dismissal of the writ petition.

To counter the said argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not

seeking employment based on the period of 209 days he worked, but on the basis of the interview conducted by the respondent and the

consequent selection of the petitioner which was also approved by the syndicate.

The University was established in 1990 and regular recruitment by selection could not be resorted immediately. In order to carry on the day to

day work, University engaged temporary hands on daily wage basis. Some of the temporary employees filed W.P. No. 3667 of 1992 for

regularisation, which was dismissed with the observation that if any vacancy arises in future and they were qualified, be considered.

The other group of temporary tabulators filed WP No. 8553 of 1992 and obtained interim stay and on 29.04.1997, the writ petition itself was

allowed and they were recruited after process of selection.

The temporary tabulators, who filed WP Nos. 21037 of 1994 and 21066 of 1994, filed fresh WP No. 2951 of 1997 and 3190 of 1997

respectively and obtained interim order. The petitioners and eight others not impleaded themselves as parties in the said petitions, but other 6

persons impleaded themselves. Pending writ petitions, the appointment order was not issued to the petitioner and 14 others, however offered

temporary employment, but after sometime, the petitioner abandoned his work and left the University. Inspite of call letters, the petitioner did not

join work.

The petitioner neither impleaded him in the said writ petitions nor continued in temporary job, but claim his right of appointment based on the

selection held already. The committee constituted by the university also considered the case of the petitioner and rejected it on various grounds

including the ground that the petitioner stayed away from duty, despite call letters he did not turn up.

It is well settled that selection to a post will not confer any vested right to a person until an appointment order is issued. In this context, it is

useful to refer to the decisions reported in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, , wherein the Honourable Supreme Court in Para Nos. 7, 9 and

10 held thus:

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....

...The final selection is subject to satisfactory report on the character, antecedent and suitability of the candidates. We, therefore, reject the claim

that the appellant had acquired a right to be appointed against the vacancy arising later on the basis of any of the rules.

...The process of final selection had to be closed at some stage as was actually done. A decision in this regard was accordingly taken and the

process for further allotment to any vacancy arising later was closed. Mr. Goswami relied upon certain appointments actually made subsequent to

this stage and urged that by those dates the further vacancies in the Indian Police Service had arisen to which the appellant and the other successful

candidates should have been adjusted. We do not find any merit in this contention....

ii) (Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and Ors.) AIR 1983 S C 796 wherein in Para-11, it was held thus:

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 post in 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....

It is evident from the above said judgments that by a mere selection, the candidate cannot acquire a indefeasible right to be appointed for such

post in the absence of any specific Rule entitling him for such appointment and he could not be aggrieved by his non-appointment.

In this case, no doubt, the petitioner participated in the typewriting test and viva-voce conducted by the respondent and his name was also

approved by the syndicate, but admittedly, no appointment order was issued. No recruitment Rules or Regulations placed by the petitioner indicate

otherwise, hence, the plea of the petitioner to that effect is rejected. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the petitioner

has not approached this Court within a reasonable time, but chosen to file this writ petition belatedly.

In view of the above said discussion, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for, hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.