Candidate has no right to insist direct recruitment process set in motion should be concluded: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that in case of direct recruitment, a candidate who has applied does not have any legal right to insist that the recruitment process set in motion should be carried to its logical end [Employees State Insurance Corporation and Another v. Dr Vinay Kumar and Others]..A Division Bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishiskesh Roy observed that even inclusion of a candidate in the select list may not clothe the candidate with such a right."The cardinal principle we must bear in mind is that this is a case of direct recruitment. A candidate who has applied does not have a legal right to insist that the recruitment process set in motion be carried to its logical end. Even inclusion of a candidate in the select list may not clothe the candidate with such a right," the Court said.However, the Court clarified that this in no manner authorises the employer to act in an arbitrary manner..The Court was dealing with a case in which advertisements were issued on March 1, 2018 calling for online applications to fill up among other posts, post of Associate Professor for the colleges run by the appellant-corporation. Later, on March 21, 2018, a notice was issued to keep the recruitment process in abeyance in regard to the post of Associate Professor and Professor for administrative reasons.Dr. Vinay Kumar (respondent) applied for the post of Associate Professor in Dentistry under the Scheduled Caste category at the ESIC Medical College. His application was dated March 31, 2018. Since, the appellant did not go through with the process, he moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking directions to fill up the post of Associate Professor in terms of the issued advertisement. The CAT allowed the plea. Aggrieved, the appellants challenged the said order of the CAT before the Karnataka High Court which came to be dismissed. The High Court directed the appellants to have the process concluded positively within a period of 45 days.The appellants then preferred the present appeal before the apex court..It was argued by the appellant that the advertisement was issued on March 1, 2018 but it was put on hold on March 21, 2018 and the respondent had applied only on March 31, 2018 i.e., after the advertisement was put on hold.It was also pointed out that on account of certain developments which took place, there may really be no need to fill up the post of Associate Professor and the respondent may not have a right to have the post filled.On the other hand, the respondent submitted that the only case set up by the appellants was that direct recruitment could not be resorted to when there is somebody available for being promoted. But, in this case, the vacancy in question viz., the vacancy reserved for members of the Scheduled Caste community could not be said to be available for promotion by mere reason that it was filled up by promotion, because the fourth respondent was given the benefit of Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP). It is only a form of certain financial benefits and it is not vacancy based..The Court after considering the rival contentions said that the cardinal principle in direct recruitment is that a candidate who has applied does not have a legal right to insist that the recruitment process set in motion be carried to its logical end.Thus, direction given by the High Court to conclude the recruitment within 45 days is clearly untenable."As the very advertisement was put on hold, it is quite likely that any candidate who may have being desirous of applying, may not have applied being discouraged by the fact that the advertisement has been put on hold. Therefore, the direction to conclude the proceedings within 45 days is unsupportable," the Court ruled. .A candidate who has applied does not have a legal right to insist that the recruitment process set in motion be carried to its logical end.Supreme Court.However, the Court also noted that the contention that there may not be any need for filling up the post, was not raised before CAT or High Court but was made for the first time before the Supreme Court..Hence, while allowing the appeal, the Bench directed the appellants to take a decision bearing in mind all relevant aspects within a period of two months and if it is decided to fill up the post in question, the needful shall be done within such time so that all interested parties may apply pursuant to the same."We make it clear that the ground as such taken that since direct recruitment could be resorted to only if there is nobody to be promoted and the vacancy stands filled up by granting of benefits to the fourth respondent under the DACP, will not be available to the appellant. In other words, the vacancy as such would be treated is available for direct recruitment for scheduled castes. As to whether it should be filled up is of course another matter," the order said. .[Read Order]