Vinod Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-URRDA and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer having more than ten years' experience in the said post, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the advertisement dated 28.08.2019 in so far as it excluded Assistant Engineers, having ten years' experience, from participating in the selection process; and a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to complete the selection process, for deputation to the post of Executive Engineer, pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.07.2018.

An advertisement was initially issued on 30.07.2018 inviting applications for appointment, on deputation, to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) with the Uttarakhand Rural Road Development Agency set-up for implementation of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, from government departments on the basis of deputation. The qualifications prescribed, for being considered for appointment on deputation as Executive Engineer (Civil), was that the applicant should either have been posted as an Executive Engineer (Civil), or should have ten years' experience as an Assistant Engineer (Civil). While the petitioner was not an Executive Engineer (Civil), he applied for appointment, on deputation, to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil), since he held the prescribed qualifications of ten years' experience as an Assistant Engineer (Civil). The said advertisement also required the applications to be forwarded through the Head of the Department.

In all, three applications were forwarded, through the Head of the Department, to the second respondent. The second respondent, however, cancelled the earlier advertisement dated 30.07.2018, and issued a fresh advertisement on 28.08.2019. In the fresh advertisement issued on 28.08.2019, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) on deputation, the prescribed qualification has been changed, and now only those who are posted as Executive Engineer (Civil), are eligible to be considered, and the other category of Assistant Engineers (Civil) with ten years' experience, in the earlier advertisement dated 30.07.2018, have been done away with.

The petitioner claims that, in case the earlier advertisement had been acted upon, he would have been eligible to be considered for appointment, on deputation, to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil), and the fresh advertisement issued on 28.08.2019, depriving those, who are similarly situated to the petitioner, from applying to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil), on deputation, is arbitrary and illegal. We must express our inability to agree.

It is well settled that no candidate has a legal right to be appointed. In terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, he has only a right to be considered for selection and appointment. (Pitta Naveen Kumar and Ors. Vs. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti and Ors. : (2006) 10 SCC 261). Ordinarily, the notification of posts is merely an invitation to the qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and, even on their selection, they do not acquire any right to the post. (Laxmibai Kshetriya v. Chand Behari Kapoor and Ors. : (1998) 7 SCC 469; Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India : (1991) 3 SCC 47; State of Bihar and Ors. v. Md. Kalimuddin and Ors. : (1996) 2 SCC 7; and Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Malkiat Singh : (2005) 9 SCC 22). Even, by mere selection, the candidates acquire no indefeasible right for appointment even against existing vacancies. (All India SC & ST Employees' Association and Anr. v. A. Arthur Jeen and Ors. : (2001) 2 SCR 1183; Aryavrat Gramin Bank v. Vijay Shankar Shukla : (2007) 12 SCC 413; State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Jagdish Chopra : (2007) 8 SCC 161; State of M.P. and Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ors. : (2008) 1 SCC 456 and Asha Kaul (Mrs.) and Anr. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. : (1993) 2 SCC 573). If a candidate has no right to claim appointment merely because he was selected/empanelled, there is no occasion to maintain a writ petition for enforcement of a non-existing right (Union of India (UOI) and Ors. v. Kali Dass Batish and Ors. : (2006) 1 SCC 779) unless the decision, not to fill up the unfilled posts, is found to be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

It is not as if the respondents have appointed a person, who did not fulfill the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement. Even according to the petitioner, the respondents have cancelled the earlier advertisement and have issued an advertisement afresh. The mere fact that the respondents have chosen to deviate from the qualifications stipulated in the earlier advertisement, by issuing a fresh advertisement, would not justify interference by this Court, save if the petitioner is able to establish that any such change was for extraneous reasons, or was a malafide exercise of power. No such allegations have been made in the Writ Affidavit. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order impugned in the Writ Petition.

The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.