RAMAN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. BIRSA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner for the post of Junior Statistical Assistant in terms of the selection made in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 3/95.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that the respondents published an advertisement for appointment of several posts including the post of Junior Statistical Assistant, vide Advertisement No. 3/95 dated 7.11.95 in which requisite qualification and others have been mentioned. Since the petitioner fulfilled all the requisite qualifications including experience, applied for the said post and he was interviewed. THEreafter, the respondents on scrutiny found the petitioner suitable for appointment and a selection list was prepared for appointment in different posts. It is contended that although appointment letters were issued by the respondents for appointment in different posts but appointment letter in favour of the petitioner for appointment in the post of Junior Statistical Assistant has not been issued for the reasons best known to the respondents. THE petitioner filed a representation before the respondent No. 2 to that effect but neither the representation was considered nor the appointment letter was issued by the respondents.

(3.) IN the case of Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 134, their Lordships relying upon the decision of the Constitution Bench, held that a candidate who finds a place in the selection list as a candidate selected for appointment to a civil post, does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific rule entitling him for such appointment and he could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a necessary concomitant that such candidate even if has a legitimate expectation of being appointed in such posts due to his name finding a place in the selection list of candidates, cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such selection list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily.