Summary
Completion of government-sponsored gardener training conferred no right to public employment where the circular expressly disclaimed any guarantee and selection for training lacked a transparent procedure. Appointment required compliance with recruitment rules or valid instructions and an opportunity for all eligible candidates to compete. Relief granted to six earlier appointees could not support parity in illegality. Directions requiring the applicants’ appointment were set aside.
Issues
- Whether completion of the training or treatment of earlier appointees entitled the applicants to appointment as gardeners.
Held
- The training scheme expressly gave no employment guarantee. Training was insufficient to compel appointment, which had to follow applicable recruitment rules or executive instructions. (¶¶ 4, 17)
- The record did not show a transparent process selecting the trainees from the larger applicant pool. Public posts had to be advertised and opened to competition by similarly situated candidates; appointment could not be directed merely because training had been completed. (¶ 17–18)
- It was unnecessary to determine whether the replacement post was an upgraded post or merely renamed. Regardless of nomenclature, the requirement of fair public recruitment remained. (¶ 18)
- Setting aside termination of six earlier appointees created no equitable entitlement for other trainees. Parity could not be founded on illegality, and the Tribunal and High Court’s appointment directions were unsustainable. (¶ 19–20)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court and Tribunal orders set aside and respondents’ original applications dismissed.