Holding

The recruitment rules are to be followed; candidates have no vested right to appointment merely by responding to an advertisement, and direct recruitment is permissible only after promotion and deputation quotas remain unfilled.

Summary

The appellants, who applied for direct recruitment to the posts of Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor and Collector in the Delhi Municipal Corporations, challenged the advertisement of 30 vacancies on the ground that the recruitment rules required promotion or deputation quotas to be filled first. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the challenge, and the Delhi High Court held that the corporations had not complied with the rules. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the recruitment rules, which allocate 50% of the posts to promotion and 50% to deputation, with direct recruitment permissible only if those quotas remain unfilled. The Court held that the rules were being followed, that the corporations could resort to direct recruitment after exhausting promotion and deputation, and that candidates have no vested right to appointment merely by responding to an advertisement or appearing on a merit list. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the recruitment rules mandate that promotion and deputation quotas must be exhausted before resorting to direct recruitment.
Whether candidates who responded to a recruitment advertisement acquire a vested right to appointment.
Whether the High Court's direction to fill vacancies only after promotion or deputation is legally valid.

Subjects

recruitment rulesdirect recruitmentpromotion quotadeputation quotamunicipal corporationcivil service appointmentvested rightmerit list

Judgment

76 [2020]
SUPREME COURT 1 S.C.R. 76
REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A MOHD. RASHID
v.
THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL BODIES, NEW SECRETARIAT &
ORS.
B (Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2020 etc.)
JANUARY 15, 2020
[L. NAGESHWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law:
C Selection/Recruitment – Advertisement for recruitment on the
posts in question – Challenged before Administrative Tribunal on
the ground that alternative process of direct recruitment could not
have been resorted to without resorting to process of promotion –
Application dismissed by the Tribunal – High Court, in writ petition,
allowed the case of the writ petitioners – Appeal to Supreme Court
D
by the candidates of direct recruitment – Held: As per Recruitment
Rules, direct recruitment was to be resorted to only if the posts could
not be filled by promotion/deputation quota – The candidates of
direct recruitment have no right to dispute the action of filling up
the posts by way of promotion or deputation – The candidates cannot
E claim any right of appointment merely because they had responded
to an advertisement.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The Recruitment Rules providing 50% quota to
be filled up by promotion failing which by direct recruitment and
F another 50% by deputation quota failing which by direct
recruitment are being followed by the Municipal Bodies.
[Para 11] [82-B]
2. The appellants who are aspirants for direct recruitment
have no right for appointment merely because at one point of
G time the vacancies were advertised. The candidates such as the
appellants cannot claim any right of appointment merely for the
reason that they responded to an advertisement. Even after

H
76
MOHD. RASHID v. THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL BODIES, NEW 77
SECRETARIAT

completion of the selection process, the candidates even on the A
merit list do not have any vested right to seek appointment only
for the reason that their names appear on the merit list. [Para 12]
[82-C-D]
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC
47 : [1991] 2 SCR 567 – followed. B
3. Since the selection process has not been completed and
keeping in view the mandate of the Statutory Rules, the appellants
have no right to dispute the action of the Municipal Bodies to fill
up the posts either by way of promotion or by deputation as such
posts are being filled up in terms of mandate of the Rules. It is C
always open to the Municipal Bodies to fill up the vacant posts
by way of direct recruitment after the posts by way of promotion
and/or deputation quota are not filled up either on the basis of
recruitment process already initiated or to be initiated afresh.
[Para 13] [83-B-C]
D
Case Law Reference
[1991] 2 SCR 567 followed Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 136 of
2020.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.09.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 5431 of 2016.
With
Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2020.
Dr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Sr. Adv., Ajay Sharma, Tejas Patel, F
Ms. Meera Kaura Patel, Ms. Rukhsar Khan, Pankaj Kumar, Gautam
Jha, Advs. for the Appellant.
S. Wasim A. Qadri, Sr. Adv., Zaid Ali Subzposh, Ajay Bansal,
Praveen Swarup, Ms. Veena Bansal, Gaurav Yadava, Mrs. Archana
Sharma, Hrishikesh Baruah, Ms. Radhika Gupta, Kshitij Paliwal, G
Ms. Memha Kaur, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Ram Naresh Yadav, Advs.
for the Respondents.

H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The candidates for direct recruitment to the posts of
Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor and Collector1 are in appeals
before this Court directed against an order passed by the High Court of
B Delhi on 1st September, 2016.
2. The candidates who were initially appointed as Lower Division
Clerks and promoted as Upper Division Clerks/Head Clerks invoked
the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal 2 challenging
Advertisement No. 3 of 2013 dated 12th September, 2013 whereby, the
C respondents set in process to fill up the posts advertised by way of direct
recruitment. The argument was that the Recruitment Regulations for
the post of Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor and Collector in
North, South and East Delhi Municipal Corporations, 20133 contemplate
that the vacancies for the posts in question are to be filled up by promotion
D failing which by direct recruitment. It was thus alleged that without
resorting to promotion by convening meeting of the Departmental
Promotion Committee4, the alternative process of direct recruitment
cannot be resorted to. The said Original Application was dismissed by
the Tribunal on 28th May, 2015 by observing that the recruitment process
is not against the constitutional provisions but the promotion must also
E not be tempered with. In the writ petition directed against such order,
the High Court held that the respondents have failed to comply with the
Recruitment Rules and that only after the respondents are unable to fill
up the vacancies either by promotion or by transfer or by deputation, the
Department would be entitled to publish the advertisement to fill up the
F vacancies. It was also found that no effort has been made to hold DPC
to carry out promotions nor the respondents have explored the possibility
to fill up the vacancies either by transfer or deputation.
3. The advertisement was published to fill up 30 vacancies by
direct recruitment to the posts in question out of which 8 were reserved
G for Other Backward Classes, 4 for Scheduled Castes, 2 for Scheduled
Tribes and 16 were meant for General category candidates including 1

1
for short, ‘posts in question’
2
for short, ‘Tribunal’
3
for short, ‘Recruitment Rules’
4
H for short, ‘DPC’
MOHD. RASHID v. THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL BODIES, NEW 79
SECRETARIAT [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

post meant to be filled up by physically handicapped candidate which is A
a horizontal reservation.
4. The Recruitment Rules were amended on 17th June, 2013 i.e.
before the advertisement was issued on 12th September, 2013. The
amended Rule reads as under:
1. Name of the Post Administrative Officer/Assistant B
Assessor and Collector
10. Method of recruitment whether by direct i) 50% by promotion, failing which
recruitment or by promotion or by by direct recruitment.
deputation/absorption and % of the ii) 50% by deputation, failing which
vacancies to be filled by various method. by direct recruitment.”
C
5. A perusal of the above Rule shows that 50% of the posts are to
be filled up by promotion. If the posts are not filled up by promotion, the
same are to be filled up by direct recruitment. Similarly, 50% of the
posts are meant to be filled up by deputation. If the deputationists are
not available, the same are to be filled up by direct recruitment.
D
6. An affidavit dated 7th August, 2019 has been filed on behalf of
North Delhi Municipal Corporation1 as to how after the amendment of
the Rules, the number of posts falling to the promotion quota have been
filled up. The assertions in the affidavit are as under:
“5(i) After notification of new Recruitment Rules dated
E
17.06.2013, the promotion to the post of Admn. Officer/AA&C
(2013) was held as under:
Sanction Filled Vacant Filled up Vacant
Post in up after DSC after DSC
promotion dated dated
quota 30.08.2013 30.08.2013 F
Total 58 33 25 25 00

(ii) The promotion to the post of Admn. Officer/AA&C (2014)
was held as under :

G
Sanction Filled Vacant Filled up Vacant
Post in up after DSC after DSC
promotion dated dated
quota 31.01.2014 31.01.2014
Total 58 48 10 4 06

5
for short, ‘North DMC’ H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A (iii) The promotion to the post of Admn. Officer/AA&C (2015)
was held as under :
Sanction Filled Vacant Filled up Vacant
Post in up after DSC after DSC
promotion dated dated
quota 22.07.2014 22.07.2014
B Total 58 23 35 31 04

(iv) The promotion to the post of Admn. Officer/AA&C (2016)
was held as under :
Sanction Filled Vacant Filled up Vacant
Post in up after DSC after DSC
C promotion dated dated
quota 08.07.2015 08.07.2015
Total 58 34 24 22 02

(v) The promotion to the post of Admn. Officer/AA&C (2017)
was held as under :
D
Sanction Filled Vacant Filled up Vacant
Post in up after DSC after DSC
promotion dated dated
quota 08.07.2015 08.07.2015
Total 68 14 54 38 16
(including 3
E SC & 1 ST)

(vi) That at present details of Vacancy position of Administrative
Officer/AA&C in all three Corporations under Promotion Quota
as on 01.07.2019 is as under, which is dealt by the North DMC
F being Nodal Corporation for promotion for all the three
Corporation:-
Sanctioned Post Filled up Vacant Post
post
Promotion 72 54 (including 18
Quota 23 LAC given
by SDMC)
G
Note: A DSC is under process, wherein 94 Section Officers,
Private Secretaries and Translators are being considered for
promotion to the post of Admn. Officer/AA&C.”

H
MOHD. RASHID v. THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL BODIES, NEW 81
SECRETARIAT [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

7. It is also mentioned that seniority list of feeder cadre has not A
been finalised on account of pendency of the matter before the Tribunal
and the High Court and that in terms of directions of the High Court,
recommendation of the review DPC has been placed before the High
Court and the matter is pending consideration before the High Court.
8. The said affidavit also gives the details of the manner of posts B
falling under the deputation quota. It is mentioned that each of the three
Municipal Corporations deal with the deputation quota at their own level.
However, the vacancies of the North DMC are stated to be as under:
“(vii) Deputation Quota: The posts under deputation quota are
being dealt by the concerned Corporation separately at their own C
level, the vacancy position of North DMC is as under:
North DMC
Sanctioned Filled Vacant
25 4 21
D
Note: As per Recruitment Rules North DMC has already invited
applications for fill-up the post of Admn. Officer/AA&C under
deputation quota vide circular dated 06.02.2019 and subsequent
reminders dated 12.07.2019. 11 applications for appointment to
the post of Admn. Officer/AA&C on deputation basis have been
E
received till date. The last date of receipt of application is
31.08.2019.
The above said table shows that the vacancy to the post of Admn.
Officer/AA&C has been filled up by the department regularly
after notification of new Recruitment Rules dated 17.06.2013.”
F
9. Thus, in respect of 25 vacancies falling to the share of the
North DMC, it is mentioned that there are 21 vacant posts and that
applications have been invited to fill up the deputation quota vide Circular
dated 6th February, 2019. 11 applications have been received though the
last date of the receipt of the applications was 31st August, 2019.
G
10. In respect of deputation quota in South Delhi Municipal
Corporation, it is mentioned in the separate affidavit that out of 32 posts
falling to the quota of deputationists, 13 posts are vacant as on 1st August,
2019. By a separate affidavit filed on behalf of East Delhi Municipal

H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A Corporation, it is mentioned that out of 14 sanctioned posts, 5 posts are
falling vacant against the deputation quota.
11. From the above information placed on record, we find that the
Recruitment Rules providing 50% quota to be filled up by promotion
failing which by direct recruitment and another 50% by deputation quota
B failing which by direct recruitment are being followed by the Municipal
Bodies.
12. The appellants who are aspirants for direct recruitment have
no right for appointment merely because at one point of time the
vacancies were advertised. The candidates such as the appellants cannot
C claim any right of appointment merely for the reason that they responded
to an advertisement published on 12th September, 2013. Even after
completion of the selection process, the candidates even on the merit list
do not have any vested right to seek appointment only for the reason
that their names appear on the merit list. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union
of India1, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that a candidate seeking
D appointment to a civil post cannot be regarded to have acquired an
indefeasible right to appointment in such post merely because of the
appearance of his name in the merit list. This Court held as under:-
“7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are
notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are
E found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right
to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily
the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified
candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do
not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment
F rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or
any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State
has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not
to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate
reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the
State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates,
G as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be
permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by
this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions
in the State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha [(1974)

6
H (1991) 3 SCC 47
MOHD. RASHID v. THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL BODIES, NEW 83
SECRETARIAT [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488 : (1974) 1 SCR 165] ; Neelima A
Shangla (Miss) v. State of Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC 268 : 1986
SCC (L&S) 759] or Jitender Kumar v. State of Punjab [(1985)
1 SCC 122 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 174 : (1985) 1 SCR 899] .”
13. Since the selection process has not been completed and keeping
in view the mandate of the Statutory Rules, we find that the appellants B
have no right to dispute the action of the Municipal Bodies to fill up the
posts either by way of promotion or by deputation as such posts are
being filled up in terms of mandate of the Rules. It is always open to the
Municipal Bodies to fill up the vacant posts by way of direct recruitment
after the posts by way of promotion and/or deputation quota are not
filled up either on the basis of recruitment process already initiated or to C
be initiated afresh.
14. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present appeals.
Accordingly, the same are dismissed.
D
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals dismissed.

E

F

G

H