Panel inclusion does not create a right to appointment where suitability is separately assessed from service record.

In assessing appointment as Special Judicial Magistrate under rules framed for Section 13 CrPC, inclusion in a panel or select list does not itself create an enforceable right to appointment. Suitability is a separate requirement from eligibility and must be judged on fitness for the post, the recruitment object, and the candidate's service record. A punishment for gross negligence and withholding of increments with cumulative effect was a relevant factor against suitability. On those facts, denial of appointment on the ground of lack of suitability was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether inclusion of the petitioner's name in the panel for appointment as Special Judicial Magistrate conferred a right to appointment, and whether a person punished for gross negligence and with adverse service record could still be treated as suitable for such appointment.

Analysis: Under the governing rules framed in exercise of the power under Section 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appointment of Special Judicial Magistrate was to be made from a panel of suitable persons, with eligibility and suitability assessed under the prescribed process. Mere inclusion in a select list or panel does not, by itself, create a legal right to appointment. Suitability is distinct from mere eligibility and depends upon fitness for the post in the light of the object of recruitment and the service record. In the present case, the petitioner's punishment for gross negligence in duty and withholding of increments with cumulative effect was a relevant disqualification in assessing suitability for the higher post.

Conclusion: The petitioner had no enforceable right to appointment, and the denial of appointment on the ground of lack of suitability was justified.

---