Case Law Details
Chhattisgarh High Court held Decision of State Government not to recruit Teachers (Panchayat) is a policy decision, cannot be interfered with in absence of arbitrariness and perversity.
Relevant Extract of the Judgment
15. Thus, the question involved in the present writ petitions has been considered by the Supreme Court in number of occasions clearly holding that a person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment and empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. Vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate. Thus, in the present case, the petitioners, though have been selected, have no indefeasible right to be appointed for which they have been selected.
16.Now, the question is whether the decision of the Government not to continue with the appointment on the subject post is justified or such an order has been passed arbitrarily without giving proper justification.
17.The aforesaid question came to be considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of East Coast Railway and another v. Mahadev Appa Rao and others 10 in which Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have said that though a candidate who has passed an examination or whose name appears in select list does not have an indefeasible right to be appointed, yet appointment cannot be denied arbitrarily, nor can selection test be cancelled without giving proper justification and Court can give appropriate directions where decision is found to be arbitrary, and it has been observed as under: –
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
