PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. GOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER of learned single judge directing fifth respondent in the present Writ Appeal (fourth respondent in the o. P.) to advise four candidates from the rank list against the reported vacancies of Peons, which is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, is under challenge. Relief sought in the original Petition was to direct respondents 2 to 5 to report the existing vacancies to the appellant in the respective local bodies and to make appointments from the rank list prepared for the post of Peon in the Municipal common a Service in Kozhikode district.

(2.) DIRECTION was given in the following background: First respondent was included in the rank list of Peons to be appointed in various municipalities and the Corporation of Kozhikode district. As per the interim order dated 4. 2. 1998, this Court directed the second respondent to report four vacancies of Peons on or before 9. 2. 1998 to the appellant. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant, it was stated that two vacancies were reported on 3. 2. 1998 and that the second respondent was unaware of the existence of the interim order passed by this Court, by which four vacancies of peons were to be reported. By the time he came to know of it, currency of the list had expired. Therefore, he reported the remaining two vacancies of Peons, as per letter dated 19. 2. 1998.

(3.) IT is well settled law that inclusion of name in the list of successful candidates does not confer an indefeasible right to be appointed. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991 (3)SCC 47), it was observed as follows: 7. IT is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. " This position was reiterated in/torn' Laxmibai Ksherriya gramin Bank v. Chand Behari Kapoor and Ors. (1998 (7) SCC 469), wherein it was observed that after expiry of the period for which the panel remains alive, it is not open to a Court to issue direction to appoint people from the said panel.