2007 (9) TMI 700 - SC - Indian Laws

SC Overrules HC: No Legal Right to Appointment; Employer Sets Cut-off Marks; Reserved Vacancies Mismanaged.

Union of India & Others Versus S. Vinodh Kumar & Others

The SC set aside the HC's judgment, ruling that the respondents did not possess a legal right to appointment after participating in the selection process. ... Jurisdiction of High Court for directing the appellants to lower the cut-off marks - Advertised Vacancy For the Posts of 'Gangman' by the Waltair Division of the then South Eastern Railways (now known as East Coast Railways) - Respondents herein had not been appointed although they had obtained the qualifying marks specified in terms of the notification dated 09.06.1998 - vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes directed to be filled up by general candidates - HELD THAT:- The fact that the Railway Administration intended to fix the cut-off mark for the purpose of filling up the vacancies in respect of the general category as also reserved category candidates is evident from the fact that different cut-off marks were fixed for different categories of candidates. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel that the cut-off marks fixed was wholly arbitrary so as to offend the principles of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The power of the employer to fix the cut-off marks is neither denied nor disputed. If the cut-off mark was fixed on a rational basis, no exception thereto can be taken. So far as the submission of the learned senior counsel in regard to the Railway Board's circular letter dated 12.03.1976 is concerned, we may at the outset notice that such a contention had not been raised before the Tribunal. Respondents herein did not have any occasion to meet the said contention. In any event, only because in a case of this nature, the said circular had not been complied with, the same, in our opinion would not lead to a conclusion that action on the part of the appellants in its entirety was unwarranted or mala fide in nature. Even assuming that the appellants should have filled up the unfilled vacancies meant for the reserved category candidates by the general candidates, but then for the said purpose, the general candidates were required to fulfill the eligibility clause including the cut-off marks fixed therefor. Respondents admittedly did not do so. The High Court, in our opinion, committed a serious error in directing the appellants to lower the cut-off marks. The cut-off mark 20 was fixed for the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe candidates. The same was not meant to be applied to the general category candidates. The jurisdiction of the appellants to fix different cut-off marks for different category of candidates has never been questioned and in that view of the matter only because the Railway Board had issued a circular as far back as in the year 1976 to fill up the vacancies by unreserved candidates in the event the reserved category of candidates was not available therefor, in our opinion, the same would not mean that irrespective of the qualification and performance of general category candidates they were entitled to be appointed. It is now a well-settled principle of law that even wait-listed candidates have no legal right to be appointed. [Ashwani Kumar Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission and Others [2003 (7) TMI 698 - SUPREME COURT]. It was for the appellant to decide as to whether the posts were to be dereserved or carried forwarded. [Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Another etc. v. Harish Kumar Purohit and Others etc.[2003 (4) TMI 568 - SUPREME COURT]. In any view of the matter, the respondents appeared in a competitive examination. The posts advertised were public posts. They did not have any vested right for appointment. It is well-known that even selected candidates do not have legal right in this behalf. [See Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India [1991 (4) TMI 444 - SUPREME COURT], Asha Kaul (Mrs.) and Another v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others [1993 (4) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT]. It is also well-settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. [See Munindra Kumar and Others v. Rajiv Govil and Others [1991 (5) TMI 255 - SUPREME COURT]. [See also Rashmi Mishra v. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and Others [2006 (10) TMI 485 - SUPREME COURT] We are, however, not oblivious that there are certain exceptions to the aforementioned rules but we are not concerned therewith in the present case - Thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. Issues Involved:1. Filling of vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by general candidates.2. Legal right of respondents to be appointed after participating in the selection process.3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to lower the cut-off marks.4. Compliance with the Railway Board's circular dated 12.03.1976.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Filling of vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by general candidates:The appellants contended that the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) should not have been directed to be filled by general candidates. The High Court had directed the appointment of general and Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidates in the unfilled SC/ST vacancies, with the assurance that future vacancies would adjust the quota to maintain the reservation ratio. The Supreme Court, however, held that even if the Railway Board's circular allowed filling unfilled reserved vacancies with general candidates, the general candidates must still meet the eligibility criteria, including the cut-off marks. The respondents did not meet these criteria, and thus the High Court's direction was erroneous.2. Legal right of respondents to be appointed after participating in the selection process:The respondents, having participated in the selection process and being unsuccessful, claimed a right to appointment. The Supreme Court reiterated that candidates do not have a legal right to appointment merely by participating in the selection process. It is well-established that even selected candidates do not have a vested right to appointment. The respondents' participation in the process knowing the laid-down procedures barred them from challenging the process post-facto. The Court cited precedents affirming that candidates who participate in a selection process cannot later question its fairness if they are unsuccessful.3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to lower the cut-off marks:The High Court had directed the lowering of cut-off marks to facilitate the appointment of the respondents. The Supreme Court emphasized that fixing cut-off marks is the prerogative of the employer or expert body and not subject to judicial review unless it is arbitrary or irrational. The cut-off marks were set rationally based on the marks obtained by candidates, and different cut-off marks for various categories were permissible. The Tribunal had correctly upheld the appellants' decision not to lower the cut-off marks, and the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by directing otherwise.4. Compliance with the Railway Board's circular dated 12.03.1976:The respondents argued that the Railway Board's circular mandated filling unfilled reserved vacancies with general candidates. The Supreme Court noted that this contention was not raised before the Tribunal, and thus the appellants did not have an opportunity to address it. Moreover, non-compliance with the circular did not inherently indicate mala fide action by the appellants. Even if the circular applied, the general candidates still needed to meet the eligibility criteria, which the respondents did not. Therefore, the High Court's reliance on the circular to justify lowering the cut-off marks was misplaced.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, stating that the respondents did not have a legal right to appointment and that the High Court erred in directing the lowering of cut-off marks. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were ordered.