A Bench of Judges of the Supreme Court Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta passed Judgment, in the case of Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2020 in Mohd. Rashid Vs The Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat & Ors and dismissed the appeal.
The facts of the case is the candidates for direct recruitment to the posts of Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor and Collector have filed appeals before the Supreme Court against an order passed by the High Court of Delhi on 1st September, 2016.
The candidates who were initially appointed as Lower Division Clerks and
promoted as Upper Division Clerks/Head Clerks invoked the jurisdiction of the
Central Administrative Tribunal challenging Advertisement No. 3 of 2013 dated
12th September, 2013 whereby, the respondents set in process to fill up the
posts advertised by way of direct recruitment. The argument was that the
Recruitment Regulations for the post of Administrative Officer/Assistant
Assessor and Collector in North, South and East Delhi Municipal Corporations,
2013 contemplate that the vacancies for the posts in question are to be filled
up by promotion failing which by direct recruitment. It was thus alleged that
without resorting to promotion by convening meeting of the Departmental
Promotion Committee, the alternative process of direct recruitment cannot be
resorted to. The said Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal on 28th
May, 2015 by observing that the recruitment process is not against the
constitutional provisions but the promotion must also not be tempered with. In
the writ petition directed against such order, the High Court held that the
respondents have failed to comply with the Recruitment Rules and that only after
the respondents are unable to fill up the vacancies either by promotion or by
transfer or by deputation, the Department would be entitled to publish the
advertisement to fill up the vacancies. It was also found that no effort has
been made to hold DPC to carry out promotions nor the respondents have
explored the possibility to fill up the vacancies either by transfer or
deputation.
The advertisement was published to fill up 30 vacancies by direct recruitment to the posts in question out of which 8 were reserved for Other Backward Classes, 4 for Scheduled Castes, 2 for Scheduled Tribes and 16 were meant for General category candidates including 1 post meant to be filled up by physically handicapped candidate which is a horizontal reservation.
A perusal of the Rule shows that 50% of the posts are to be filled up by promotion. If the posts are not filled up by promotion, the same are to be filled up by direct recruitment. Similarly, 50% of the posts are meant to be filled up by deputation. If the deputationists are not available, the same are to be filled up by direct recruitment.
An affidavit dated 7th August, 2019 has been filed on behalf of North Delhi
Municipal Corporation as to how after the amendment of the Rules, the number of
posts falling to the promotion quota have been filled up.
It is also mentioned that seniority list of feeder cadre has not been finalised
on account of pendency of the matter before the Tribunal and the High Court and
that in terms of directions of the High Court, recommendation of the review DPC
has been placed before
the High Court and the matter is pending consideration before the High Court.
The said affidavit also gives the details of the manner of posts falling under
the deputation quota. It is mentioned that each of the three Municipal
Corporations deal with the deputation quota at their own level.
Thus, in respect of 25 vacancies falling to the share of the North DMC, it is mentioned that there are 21 vacant posts and that applications have been invited to fill up the deputation quota vide Circular dated 6th February, 2019. 11 applications have been received though the last date of the receipt of the applications was 31st August, 2019. In respect of deputation quota in South Delhi Municipal Corporation, it is mentioned in the separate affidavit that out of 32 posts falling to the quota of deputationists, 13 posts are vacant as on 1st August, 2019. By a separate affidavit filed on behalf of East Delhi Municipal Corporation, it is mentioned that out of 14 sanctioned posts, 5 posts are falling vacant against the deputation quota
From the above information placed on record, we find that the Recruitment Rules providing 50% quota to be filled up by promotion failing which by direct recruitment and another 50% by deputation quota failing which by direct recruitment are being followed by the Municipal Bodies.
The appellants who are aspirants for direct recruitment have no right for
appointment merely because at one point of time the vacancies were advertised.
The candidates such as the appellants cannot claim any right of appointment
merely for the reason that
they responded to an advertisement published on 12th September, 2013. Even after
completion of the selection process, the candidates even on the merit list do
not have any vested right to seek appointment only for the reason that their
names appear on the merit list. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, a
Constitution Bench of this Court held that a candidate seeking appointment to a
civil post cannot be regarded to have acquired an indefeasible right to
appointment in such post merely because of the appearance of his name in the
merit list.
Since the selection process has not been completed and keeping in view the
mandate of the Statutory Rules, we find that the appellants have no right to
dispute the action of the Municipal Bodies to fill up the posts either by way of
promotion or by deputation as such posts are being filled up in terms of mandate
of the Rules. It is always open to the Municipal Bodies to fill up the vacant
posts by way of direct recruitment after the posts by way of promotion and/or
deputation quota are not filled up either on the basis of recruitment process
already initiated or to be initiated afresh.
Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed.