S. Velu v. Manonmaniam Sundaranar University

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28.07.2006CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARANW.P. No. 3850 of 2003S. Velu.. PetitionerVersusManonmaniam Sundaranar Universityrep. by its RegistrarTirunelveli-9... RespondentPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for a Writ of Mandamus as stated therein.For Petitioner :Mr. P.M. SubramaniamFor Respondents :Mr. Govardhanan for M/s. Row & ReddyORDERThe above writ petition is filed praying for a Writ ofMandamus directing the respondent viz., Manonmaniam SundaranarUniversity rep. by its Registrar, Tirunelveli – 9 to act inaccordance with their resolution dated 14.11.1997 dealing withthe appointment of the petitioner as Tabulator and consequentlydirect the respondent to appoint the petitioner to the permanentpost of Tabulator in the respondent University, regularise hisservices and pay salary and allowances to him in accordance tolaw.2.Heard both sides. The petitioner and 14 other personswere sponsored by the employment exchange to therespondent/University to consider them for appointment to thepost of Tabulators. It is stated that the petitioner hadparticipated in the typewriting test and precise writing test inthe first week of February 1997, the interview conducted on25.02.1997, the petitioner and 14 others were selected and theselection list was placed before the Syndicate on 01.03.1997 forapproval and a resolution was also passed on 14.11.1997 by theSyndicate approving the name of the petitioner and 14 others forappointment to the post of Tabulators, however, beforeappointment orders were issued, the persons who were alreadyworking as Tabulators on adhoc basis in the respondent/universityhave filed W.P. No. 2591 of 1997 and 3190 of 1997 before thisCourt against the selection of the petitioner and 14 others and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ obtained interim injunction and because of the interim orderpassed by this Court, the petitioner and 14 others could not beappointed by the respondent. Among the said 14 persons, six ofthem have impleaded themselves as respondents in the above saidwrit petitions but the petitioner failed to do so and therespondent/university also filed a petition in WMP NO. 17800 of1998 to vacate the interim order which was also allowed on23.09.1998, however, in the said order, it was directed that theright of the said persons would be considered subject to theresult of the writ petitions. It is stated that the said writpetitions were also disposed of by this Court on 21.12.2001 andafter disposal of the same, the respondent constituted acommittee and the said six persons and others including thepetitioner appeared and the committee submitted its report on05.09.2002 and drawn a tentative seniority list as per thedirections issued by this Court in the above said writ petitions.Thereafter, the six persons, who got themselves impleaded in thewrit petitions were appointed to the post of Tabulators. It isstated that the committee refused to recommend the name of thepetitioner and others since they have not impleaded themselves asparties in the writ petitions, hence, the present writ petitionhas been filed by the petitioner on 28.01.2003. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner is entitled to all the benefits, which were extendedto the other six persons; that the petitioner has passed thetypewriting test conducted in the month of February 1997, viva-voce on 25.02.1997 and he was selected along with other 14persons, his name was also sent to the Syndicate for approvalwhich was also approved but appointment order was not issuedbecause of the interim order granted by this Court; that thepetitioner failed to implead himself as a party in the writpetitions, which cannot be a reason for denying appointment tothe petitioner; that the petitioner also appeared before thecommittee constituted by the respondent, but the committee,without any valid reasons not recommended the name of thepetitioner and prayed for allowing the writ petition as prayedfor.4.Mr. Govardhanan, learned counsel for the respondentsubmits that the petitioner was employed in the respondentuniversity between 1997 and January 1999 as mentioned below:-i)03.09.1997 and 02.11.1997ii)04.11.1997 to 03.02.1998iii) 23.02.1998 to 22.04.1998iv)08.06.1998 to 07.08.1998v)09.09.1998 to 08.11.1998vi)17.11.1998 and 16.01.19995.It is further stated by the learned counsel for therespondent that in all, the petitioner worked for 209 days onlyand thereafter, the petitioner admittedly stayed away from workand did not report to duty, inspite of the call memos dated09.05.2000 and 05.12.2000 sent by the respondent, for the obviousreason that he might have secured some alternative job, hence, it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is not open to him to seek the remedy on par with the said sixpersons; that the above said facts were also considered by thecommittee constituted by the respondent and submitted its reporton 05.09.2002 but the petitioner has not chosen to challenge thesaid report of the committee but filed this writ petitionbelatedly and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.6.To counter the said argument of the learned counsel forthe respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat the petitioner is not seeking employment based on the periodof 209 days he worked, but on the basis of the interviewconducted by the respondent and the consequent selection of thepetitioner which was also approved by the syndicate.7.The University was established in 1990 and regularrecruitment by selection could not be resorted immediately. Inorder to carry on the day to day work, University engagedtemporary hands on daily wage basis. Some of the temporaryemployees filed W.P. No. 3667 of 1992 for regularisation, whichwas dismissed with the observation that if any vacancy arises infuture and they were qualified, be considered.8.The other group of temporary tabulators filed WPNo.8553 of 1992 and obtained interim stay and on 29.04.1997, thewrit petition itself was allowed and they were recruited afterprocess of selection.9.The temporary tabulators, who filed WP Nos. 21037 of1994 and 21066 of 1994, filed fresh WP No. 2951 of 1997 and 3190of 1997 respectively and obtained interim order. The petitionersand eight others not impleaded themselves as parties in the saidpetitions, but other 6 persons impleaded themselves. Pendingwrit petitions, the appointment order was not issued to thepetitioner and 14 others, however offered temporary employment,but after sometime, the petitioner abandoned his work and leftthe University. Inspite of call letters, the petitioner did notjoin work.10.The petitioner neither impleaded him in the said writpetitions nor continued in temporary job, but claim his right ofappointment based on the selection held already. The committeeconstituted by the university also considered the case of thepetitioner and rejected it on various grounds including theground that the petitioner stayed away from duty, despite callletters he did not turn up.11.It is well settled that selection to a post will notconfer any vested right to a person until an appointment order isissued. In this context, it is useful to refer to the decisionsreported in (Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India) AIR 1991 SupremeCourt 1612, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court in Para Nos. 7,9 and 10 held thus:-"7.It is not correct to say that if anumber of vacancies are notified forappointment and adequate number of candidates https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ are found fit, the successful candidatesacquire an indefeasible right to be appointedwhich cannot be legitimately denied.Ordinarily the notification merely amounts toan invitation to qualified candidates toapply for recruitment and on their selectionthey do not acquire any right to the post.Unless the relevant recruitment rules soindicate, the State is under no legal duty tofill up all or any of the vacancies...."9.....The final selection is subjectto satisfactory report on the character,antecedent and suitability of the candidates.We, therefore, reject the claim that theappellant had acquired a right to beappointed against the vacancy arising lateron the basis of any of the rules.10......The process of final selectionhad to be closed at some stage as wasactually done. A decision in this regard wasaccordingly taken and the process for furtherallotment to any vacancy arising later wasclosed. Mr. Goswami relied upon certainappointments actually made subsequent to thisstage and urged that by those dates thefurther vacancies in the Indian PoliceService had arisen to which the appellant andthe other successful candidates should havebeen adjusted. We do not find any merit inthis contention....."ii)(Union Territory of Chandigarh vs. Dilbagh Singh andothers) AIR 1983 Supreme Court 796 wherein in Para-11, it washeld thus:-"11.If we have regard to the aboveenunciation that a candidate who finds aplace in the select list as a candidateselected for appointment to a civil post,does not acquire an indefeasible right to beappointed in such post in the absence of anyspecific rule entitling him for suchappointment and he could be aggrieved by hisnon-appointment only when the Administrationdoes so either arbitrarily or for no bonafide reasons, it follows as a necessaryconcomitant that such candidate even if has alegitimate expectation of being appointed insuch posts due to his name finding a place inthe select list of candidates, cannot claimto have a right to be heard before suchselect list is cancelled for bona fide andvalid reasons and not arbitrarily....."12.It is evident from the above said judgments that by amere selection, the candidate cannot acquire a indefeasible right https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to be appointed for such post in the absence of any specific Ruleentitling him for such appointment and he could not be aggrievedby his non-appointment.13.In this case, no doubt, the petitioner participated inthe typewriting test and viva-voce conducted by the respondentand his name was also approved by the syndicate, but admittedly,no appointment order was issued. No recruitment Rules orRegulations placed by the petitioner indicate otherwise, hence,the plea of the petitioner to that effect is rejected. Asrightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent,the petitioner has not approached this Court within a reasonabletime, but chosen to file this writ petition belatedly.14.In view of the above said discussion, the petitioner isnot entitled to the relief sought for, hence, the writ petitionis dismissed. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.rshToThe RegistrarManonmaniam Sundaranar UniversityTirunelveli1 cc to Mr. P.M. Subramaniam, Advocate, Sr. 337201 cc to Mr. Row and Reddy, Advocate, Sr. 33627WP No. 3850 of 2003MJ (CO)kk 8/8