The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the petition seeking appointments for unfulfilled posts and held that even a candidate who secured a spot in the merit list cannot claim to have a right in law to seek an appointment unless it is shown to the Court that the decision of the employer not to make an appointment is arbitrary and without any justifiable reason.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners, unsuccessful candidates who were not selected for the post of Police Constable filed the present petition seeking direction from the court for respondents for publishing of second merit list as prescribed under the Jharkhand Police Manual and making appointments on unfilled posts.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the appellants were more eligible for the said post and there were about 200 posts that had remained unfulfilled and thus the procedure adopted by the respondents in preparing the second merit list for appointment cannot be countenanced in law. The counsel further contended that the delay on the part of the respondents in publishing the merit list after the advertisement related to appointment for the post of Police Constable was issued has caused prejudice to the appellants as all of them have crossed the maximum age.
Observations of the Court:
The court further stated that even a candidate who secured a spot in the merit list cannot claim to have a right in law to seek an appointment unless it is shown to the Court that the decision of the employer not to make an appointment is arbitrary and without any justifiable reason. The court referred to the judgment in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India which held that it is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and an adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied.
On the issue of the decision of the respondents to not make an appointment for the vacant post of Police Constable from the applicants, the court stated that the present lea cannot be a ground to interfere in that matter. The court stated that a writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised on a ground of sympathy and an aspirant for the said position may have a right for consideration but he cannot claim the right for appointment on the ground of sympathy.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition and concluded that there was no reason to interfere in the matter.
Case Title: Gokul Pandey and anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandrashekhar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ratnaker Bhengra
Case No.: LPA No. 859 of 2019
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Suraj Prakash
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Rishi Raj Verma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFZZr5OfftCnKzBqemUkTKbTPo1JbNZzSjRg&usqp=CAU
