The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the principle that merely participating in a recruitment process does not confer an automatic right to appointment. The court dismissed a petition filed by Vijay Kaushik, who sought a notional appointment and seniority benefits for the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police following a recruitment examination held in 2007.
The bench, comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia, upheld the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in two orders dated May 23, 2011, and September 7, 2020. The court observed that the petitioner, who had narrowly missed the cutoff mark in the 2007 recruitment, could not claim a right to appointment or seniority merely because some vacancies remained unfilled.
Background of the Case
The case originated when Vijay Kaushik applied for the position of Sub Inspector (Male) in the Delhi Police under the Unreserved (UR) category in response to a recruitment notification issued in 2007. Kaushik scored 127 marks in the selection process, falling just short of the cutoff of 128 marks for the UR category. Learning through the Right to Information Act, 2005, that four candidates with lower marks were appointed after the conclusion of the recruitment process, Kaushik challenged the recruitment procedure before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Kaushik initially filed OA No. 543/2009, arguing that all 692 vacancies advertised should have been filled, including the 14 vacancies left unfilled and 17 vacancies that opened up due to resignations. However, when he learned that the unfilled vacancies had been carried over to subsequent recruitment cycles, he withdrew his petition. Later, in OA No. 2322/2009, he sought to challenge the notification for the 2009 recruitment, demanding that he be appointed based on the 2007 vacancies.
Key Legal Issues Involved
The central issue was whether Kaushik, having missed the cutoff in the 2007 recruitment by a single mark, had any legal right to be appointed or claim seniority over candidates selected in later recruitment cycles. He contended that the authorities acted arbitrarily by not preparing a waiting list in 2007, thereby denying him the opportunity for appointment despite subsequent vacancies.
On the other hand, the respondent, represented by Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC, and advocates Mr. Abhishrut Singh and Ms. Aishani Mohan, argued that the recruitment process was conducted per the rules and that unfilled vacancies were rightly carried forward to subsequent recruitment cycles. They emphasized that the petitioner, having missed the cutoff, did not have an inherent right to appointment.
Court’s Decision and Observations
The Delhi High Court sided with the respondent’s arguments, affirming that the petitioner did not have any enforceable right to be appointed. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India (1991), which clarified that even if several vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed.
Quoting the Tribunal’s observations, the court noted:
“The applicant had not been empanelled in the list of selected candidates; nor did his name figure in any waiting panel, as no such panel had at all been prepared… The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.”
The court also observed that Kaushik, having participated in the recruitment process for 2009 and subsequently being appointed, could not claim seniority from the 2007 recruitment process. It emphasized that creating a waiting list or filling vacancies beyond the notified list is at the discretion of the authorities, provided it is done without arbitrariness.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Kaushik’s petition, reiterating that no candidate has an automatic right to appointment merely by participating in the selection process. The court also upheld the imposition of a Rs. 10,000 cost on the petitioner, as ordered by the Tribunal in its September 2020 decision, for misrepresenting facts and attempting to misuse the judicial process.
Case Title: Vijay Kaushik vs. Commissioner of Police
Case Number: W.P.(C) 7241/2020
