Srinagar: The J&K High Court on Monday termed the overriding by Sports Council the most qualified candidate for appointment to the post of driver in favour of “ineligible” one as arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, colourable exercise and abuse of power.
An employer has to give justifiable, non-arbitrary reasons for not offering a successful qualified candidate appointment, particularly, when the employer is State, the J&K High court said.
In a writ petition challenging the appointment of a candidate who stood far behind the meritorious applicant for the driver’s post, Justice Javed Iqbal Wani said “the employer has to give justifiable non-arbitrary reasons for not offering such successful qualified candidates’ appointment, particularly, when the employer is State”.
He made it clear that it is bound to act and follow the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
“Those, who have been declared qualified, have a reasonable expectation that they will be appointed. No doubt this is not a vested right, yet the employer has to provide justified reasons for overriding a candidate,” he said.
The inaction of not appointing the most meritorious candidate by the Council is “arbitrary, capricious and whimsical besides colourable exercise and abuse of power to say the least”, he said.
Despite having been found the most meritorious candidate among all the aspirants in the selection process, Ravinder Singh was denied appointment for the post of driver. Instead, a less meritorious aspirant and the one who was nor eligible was appointed, says the writ petition.
The facts as pleaded in the petition and not being disputed by the Sports Council, say that Singh stood at number one in the order of merit. The information furnished by the petitioner to the court also reveals that the person at number two was ineligible because he was over-age on the cut-off date provided in the advertisement notice.
The objections by the Council said that mere selection to the post does not give a vested right to the petitioner to seek appointment against a post.
The appointment, according to the Council, lies in the domain of the employer and that the employee is within its power and competence either to fill or not to fill up the post in view of the suitability of the selected candidate.
Justice Wani in his judgment said that mere selection does not confer any right of appointment and that an employer has a right to abandon the selection process at any time.
“Can it be done arbitrarily without any reasonable and just cause on the sweet will of the employer? Can an employer be permitted to resort to a pick and choose method while making an appointment from a selection list by appointing a less meritorious candidate leaving out a more meritorious candidate?” he asked.
He emphatically replied “no not at all” because ours is a country governed by rule of law and arbitrariness is an anathema to the rule of law.
Accordingly, the Council was commanded to offer appointment to the petitioner and admit him to all the consequential benefits.
