In a significant judgment by the Supreme Court of India, the case involving the dismissal of the appointed candidate, G Vijender, and its impact on the Select List has been thoroughly examined. The issue of whether the dismissal of the appointed candidate revives the Select List or results in the appointment of another candidate was central to this case. The verdict provides clarity on the legal implications of such scenarios in recruitment processes, shaping future decisions in similar situations.
Facts
- Appellant’s writ petition dismissed by the High Court while affirming the Tribunal’s order.
- Tribunal’s order determined respondent’s right to be appointed as postman.
- Upon dismissal of previously appointed candidate, respondent deemed eligible for appointment to the post.
- The Superintendent of Post Offices, Hanamkonda issued a notification on 4 November 2013 for conducting a departmental examination for the cadre of postman.
- G Vijender was declared selected and posted as a postman based on the examination results.
- Upon receiving a complaint of fraudulent means, G Vijender was suspended on 24 January 2014.
- The result of the examination was declared on 20 December 2013.
- The respondent, who was second in the order of merit, filed an Original Application before the Tribunal.
- G Vijender was dismissed from service after a departmental enquiry on 29 April 2016.
Also Read: Court’s Jurisdiction in Re-appraising Arbitrator’s Findings
Arguments
- The selection process resulted in the appointment of G Vijender.
- The appointed candidate’s services were terminated after a disciplinary enquiry.
- The Select List was considered exhausted after G Vijender’s appointment.
- Counsel argued that the subsequent dismissal of G Vijender does not revive the Select List.
- The petitioner argued that G Vijender’s appointment was void ab initio due to fraudulent means.
Also Read: Contrary Directions in Issuance of Letter of Intent
Analysis
- Dismissal from service of the appointed candidate in 2016 would not revive the Select List or result in the appointment of the respondent.
- This principle was established in the case of Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited.
- The case held that the dismissal of a candidate does not have the effect of reviving the Select List or resulting in the appointment of another candidate.
- The impugned orders of the Tribunal and the High Court cannot be sustained.
- This conclusion is reached after adopting a specific view.
- The reasons for finding the impugned orders unsustainable should reflect in the overall judgment reasoning.
Also Read: Application for Stay in Civil Suit Rejected: Court’s Legal Analysis
Decision
- The Original Application filed by the respondent seeking appointment to the post of postman is dismissed.
- Delay condoned.
- The appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 8 February 2018 is set aside.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Vs. G. RAMESH (2020 INSC 24)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000140-000140 / 2020
