Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed direct-recruitment aspirants’ challenge concerning municipal Administrative Officer posts. The amended rules reserved half for promotion and half for deputation, with direct recruitment only upon failure of the respective route. The record showed the municipal bodies following those routes. Responding to an advertisement, especially where selection was incomplete, conferred no appointment right overriding the rules. Direct recruitment remained available for posts not filled through promotion or deputation.
Issues
- Whether applicants under the earlier direct-recruitment advertisement could insist on appointments contrary to the amended promotion and deputation sequence.
Provisions considered
- Method of recruitment, entry 10, Recruitment Regulations for Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor and Collector in Delhi Municipal Corporations, 2013Half the posts were for promotion and half for deputation, with direct recruitment upon failure of the respective method. (¶¶ 4, 5, 11, 13)
Held
- The affidavits and vacancy information showed that municipal bodies were acting under the amended rules by filling promotion and deputation quotas. Direct recruitment was the fallback where those methods did not fill the posts. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- An advertisement and application did not confer an appointment right. Even inclusion in a completed merit list ordinarily creates no indefeasible right, subject to the requirement of bona fide and non-discriminatory State action. Here selection had not been completed and the statutory recruitment scheme controlled. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- If promotion or deputation left posts unfilled, the bodies could resort to direct recruitment through the initiated process or a fresh one. The aspirants could not prevent compliance with the prescribed primary routes. (¶ 13)
Result
Appeals dismissed; recruitment in accordance with the promotion/deputation rules left undisturbed, with direct recruitment available as the prescribed fallback.