No vested right of the unsuccessful candidate to insist upon their consideration

Share on:

Hearing to the case of Question of repugnancy between the two Rules (2015 rules and 1978 rules) for the selection process of Group ‘C’ posts of Gram Panchayat Adhikari. 

The Supreme Court held that it is not open to the candidate to contend to the contrary so that he can have the best of both sets of rules. In addition, not only there is a difference in the mode of selection, but also in the constitution of recruiting authority whereas there is no such procedure for preparing a waiting-list, as contend by the Respondents. 

The bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ensured that an employer shall always have adequate discretion with an element of flexibility while selecting an employee and interference can only be made when a selection is arbitrary or contrary to law. Further highlighting that the 1978 Rules do not exist in the statute once the 2015 Rules came into being therefore, the latter one will govern the field. Merely because the Appellant sought to amend the 1978 Rules subsequently in 2016, it cannot be presumed that the 1978 Rules particularly with respect to Rule 15 continue to exist in the statute book, considering the fact that the 2016 amendment was only clarificatory in nature. 

There is no vested right of the unsuccessful candidate to insist upon their consideration in the absence of any such rule requiring the preparation of a waiting-list, therefore, a court of law is expected to reconcile the rules and not to foresee or presume conflicts, if any. 

Supreme  Court further stated that the scope of review has to be looked at differently as an enlarged view therefore, the impugned judgments were set aside and the appeal was allowed.