Listen to this articleCommissioner of Police and Anr v. Umesh Kumar
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3334 OF 2020 decided on October 07, 2020
Bench: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee, JJ.
FACTS
In this case, the respondent participated in the
selection process to the 2013 batch of constables (Executive)- Male in Delhi
Police. The candidates were successful in the written result and the selection
process was initiated. Unsuccessful candidates challenged the answer keys
before the Central Administrative Tribunal. An Expert Committee was appointed
by the Competent Authority in Delhi Police which found that there were
typographical errors in the answer keys.
Meanwhile, the selection process was kept in abeyance. The results were revised
later and as many as 123 candidates who have been selected earlier were ousted
and 129 new candidates came in the selection list. The ousted candidates
approached the Central Administrative Tribunal against this order and challenged
it before the Delhi High Court. The High Court directed appointment of ousted
candidates. Hence, the present appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the ousted candidate had vested right of
appointment?
JUDGEMENT
The Court relying upon Punjab SEB v. Malkiat Singh
(2005) 9 SCC 22 held that the decision given by the Delhi High court was
contrary to law and mere inclusion of candidate in a selection list does not
confer upon them a vested right of appointment.
The
Supreme Court differentiated it’s judgment from Rajesh Kumar v. State of
Bihar (2013) 4 SCC 690, wherein the process of evaluation of answer scripts
by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, had been found to be flawed but the Court
even then refused to oust those individuals from service who did not make the
grade after re-valuation of the result since they had been in service for
nearly seven years. However, in the present case, the revised result was
declared even before offers of appointment were made to the respondents since
the entire process of recruitment had been put in abeyance.