T. Sakthivel Vs. the Superintendent of Police - Court Judgment

Sathiadev, J.

1. Petitioner in W.P. No. 10389 of 1985 is the appellant and the respondent therein is the respondent herein. He filed the writ petition for issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to complete the selection of Sub-Inspector of Police by holding written test pursuant to his order in C.NoAl/6771/81, dt. 8-9-1981.

2. He claims that respondent called for application for direct recruitment of Non Sub-Inspectors of Police for the year 1981, and he was one of the applicants. He appeared for physical efficiency test on 3-9-1981 and came out successful with 11 stars. By letter dt. 8-9-1981, he was directed to attend the written test to be held on 19-9-1981. Eventhough he was prepared to appear for the written test, he received a letter on 15-9-1981 stating as follows:

Written test to be held on 19-9-1981 for selection of S.Is. is postponed. Fresh date will be intimated later.

Thereafter, the respondent had failed and neglected to conduct the written test and now fresh applications have been called for, but he would not be eligible to apply because he had completed the age limit of 28 years. For the selection proposed to be held in 1981, no appointment by direct recruitment had so far been made. Therefore, he has filed the writ petition for the reliefs as claimed above.

3. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition in admission stage by stating as follows:

The earlier selection of Sub Inspectors of Police was given up and therefore fresh selections have been resorted to. By then the petitioner became over-aged. Therefore, he cannot compel the respondent to complete the selection, which ought to have taken place in 1981. Writ petition dismissed. No costs.

4. Mr. K. Doraisami, learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant, submits that once applications are called for certain vacancies, and if applicants participate in the process of selection upto a stage, thereafter it is not open to the selecting authority or appointing authority to drop the proposed recruitment, and that the applicants have acquired a vested right to be appointed. He further submits that, when the petitioner had participated in the physical efficiency test, and having been called to attend the written test, thereafter, the respondent had no legal right to abandon the recruitment process, and therefore, all the applicants, who had applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police in 1981, have a right to be considered for recruitment, whenever it may be done. Even assuming that the respondent had the authority or power to drop proposed recruitment, at later point of time if applications are called for, then the earlier applicants, who have since become over-aged, should be considered as eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police.

5. By calling for applications to fill up certain posts, no applicant acquires a vested right to be appointed to the post. He cannot insist upon the authority that the vacancy must be filled up. It is entirely for the appointing authority to decide whether as proposed the vacancies are to be filled up or given up, depending upon and exigency of the situation. There have been several instances in which anticipating aid from the World Bank or from outside agencies, certain schemes are proposed to be implemented, and in that process, applications are called for recruitment of the required personnel, but later on if the expected funds are not made available, the scheme is abandoned resulting in none of them being recruited. The process started for recruitment, gets abandoned. There are also instances wherein certain vacancies are anticipated, and applications are called for to fill up such vacancies, but later on, either because the age of the retirement is increased or because the Department gets bifurcated, the proposed recruitments do not fructify. Therefore, till actually the selected candidates assume charge in the posts, the appointing authority has the right either to fill up the posts or drop the proposal to recruit persons, and revive by calling for fresh applications. Even after selections are made by Public Service Commission, on securing confidential reports regarding character, antecedents, etc., there have been occasions where the selected candidates have not been appointed' to the posts, and those in the lower rank had been allowed to join duty. Hence, on calling for applications to fill up certain posts, and participating partly is the process of selection, does not confer any vested right on the applicants to insist that the selecting or appointing authority shall complete the process of selection and fill up the vacancies.

6. Yet, Mr. K.Doraisami, learned Counsel for the appellant, relies upon a decision of this Court in W.P.Nos 589 and 983 of 1981, etc., Order dt. 17-2-1983. It was a case in which personnel already employed in the Forest Department applied for the post of Foresters and inspite of being interviewed by a Committee, Government abandoned it, and appointed another committee to make fresh selection. Under such circumstance, the learned Judge accepted the contention of the State to the following effect:. No doubt, on the basis of this decision, the learned Advocate-General is correct in stating that the petitioners have no right to the post..,

The decision relied upon by the learned judge is reported in IJ. Divakar.v. Govt. of A.P. : (1983)ILLJ217SC , in which it was held that in response to an advertisement catling for applications, the applicant only offers himself to be considered for the post and his application only makes him eligiblefor being considered for the post and that 'it does not create any right in the candidate to the post.' Yet, relying upon certain observations in the said decision, which were strictly confined to the facts of that case, the learned Judge in the last paragraph of that judgment observed that hopes have been generated in the minds of the candidates, had therefore, certain directions are given to finalise the list based on viva voce test already conducted for them. It is in taking such a view, the learned Judge directed that after filling up of the vacancies for the post of Foresters according to the list now said to have been prepared by the Second Committee, the next vacancies will be given to the petitioners therein.

7. Mr. K.Doraisami, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that, in the instant case as well, in spite of the petitioner having become over-aged and ineligible according to the Rules; this Court may direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for recruitment made thereafter.

8. Once the Supreme Court in I.J. Divakar v. Govt. of A.P. A.l.R 1982 S.C. 1555, having held that filing of an application only makes a candidate eligible to be considered for the post, and 'it does not create any right in the candidate to the post', and in W.P.Nos. 589 and 983 of 1981, etc., the learned Judge having agreed with the claim of the Advocate-General that the applicants have no right to the post; any other direction in the nature given is contrary to the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court and of the Rules framed regarding eligibility of candidates to be considered. When statutory rules are in force prescribing certain eligibility a criteria like age, educational qualifications, physical fitness etc., equity could never step into those fields and bring about anomalous results. Certain qualifications are prescribed to bring about efficiency in service and in turn for public good. Both the decisions have preceeded on the basis that the candidate has, no vested right. Thereafter, it is open to given directions to a public authority to not act against Rules and the Principle of Law upheld by the Court. It is the cardinal duty of Court to enforce the provisions of the Act, Regulations, and Rules in the manner as framed, and if they are found to be unreasonable, illegal or invalid, it is open to the Court to strike down the Rules. So long as they are found to be valid, a Court has to interpret and enforce the Rules strictly in the manner in which they are framed. What a public authority, cannot do in contravention of the Rules, a Court cannot do by it's orders, under the cover of equity being extended under the clock of justice. It is a misnomer to call it doing equity and justice, when in fact it results in contravention of Rules.

9. Therefore, the decision of the learned Judge in W.P.Nos. 589 and 983 of 1981, etc., Order dt. 17-12-1983 is hereby overruled, and the reconsenda-tory or the advisory suggestion given therein can never be relied upon.

10. Therefore, as the petitioner had no vested right to insist upon the respondent to complete the process of recruitment based on applications called for in 1981, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.