SOMDUTT SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner in short is that on the basis of his eligibility he applied for appointment in the cadre of Rajasthan Administrative and Allied Services for selection pursuant to the advertisement issued by RPSC dated 10. 5. 1999.

(2.) FROM the bare perusal of the advertisement, it is revealed that number of posts were advertised in the administrative as well as allied services for being filled up through the selection process. The petitioner was called for written examination in which he participated and thereafter called for interview vide Annexure-2 and after holding the interview, the RPSC prepared a merit list not only for the post of RAS but also for allied services including the services to the Rajasthan Tehsildar Services vide Annexure. 3.

(3.) I am fortified in my aforesaid observation from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India and ors. vs. N. R. Banerjee and ors. (2), wherein, the apex court held, as under :- " In Union Territory of Chandigarh vs. Dilbagh Singh, it was held that the mere fact that a candidate's name finds a place in the select list as a selected candidate for appointment to a post, does not confer on him/her an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specified rule entitling him to such appointment. In State of Bihar vs. Secretariat Asstt. Successful Examinees Union 1986 it was held that a person who is selected and empanelled does not on account of empannelment alone acquire any indefeasible right to appointment. Empannelment is, at the best, a condition of eligibility for the purposes of appointment and that by itself does not amount to selection or creation of a vested right to appointment unless relevant rules state to the contrary. "