UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARHversusDILBAGH SINGH AND ORS.

              UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH .                            A
                                  v.
                        DILBAGH SINGH AND ORS.

                           NOVEMBER 3, 1992
                                                                         B
            [J.S. VERMA, YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND
                     N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]


     Civil Services :

      Chandigarh Transport Undertaking-Conductors-Selection for ap- C
pointment--Constitution of Selection Board-Select list prepared-Criticism
of favouritism and nepotism in awarding marks at Interview-Confirmed on
examination by Administration though corruption charges not estab-
lished-However selection unfair and injudicious-Administration ordering
cancellation of select list and constituting new Selection Board-Validity D
of- Non-affording of opportunity to Members of Selection Board and selected
candidates-Effect of

       For filling up the posts of 32 vacancies of conductors in the
Transport Undertaking under it, the appellant requested the Employment
Exchange to sponsor names or eligible candidates and constituted a Selec- E
lion Board to prepare a Select List. The Selection Board interviewed 446
candidates sponsiired by the Employment Exchange and prepared a Seleci
List or 32 candidates on the basis or marks awardable for educational
qualifications and performance at the interview. There was criticism that
the select list was an amalgum of favouritism, nepotism and even corrup- F
tion resorted to by members or the Selection Board. Tiie appellant got the
select list examined which revealed that the select list was not prepared by
the members or the Selection Board fairly and judiciously, in that, the
members had taken undue advantage of awarding marks in the interview
to favour candidates of their choice, although there was no evidence of
corruption. Hence the appellant decided to constitute a new Selection G
Board to prepare fresh select list on the basis of only 15 per cent marks
awardable to candidates in interview as against 30% marks fixed earlier
lest the power of the Selection Board to award interview marks may be
utilised either to pull up unmerited candidates or pull down merited
candidates. Accordingly, the appellant cancelled the select list of can- H
                                   311
    312                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A didates and constituted a new Selection Board to prepare a fresh select
    list from out of candidates including those who had been interviewed by
    the earlier Selection Board and the criteria to be followed was that 85%
    marks would be awardable for educational qualifications and 15o/o marks
    for performance in interview.

B           When the newly ·constituted Selection Board was about to inten·iew
     the candidates, the respondents whose names found place in the cancelled
     select list approached the Central Adm:nistrative Tribunal seeking the
     setting aside of the order cancelling the select list and constituting a new
     Board. The Tribunal, on the ground of non-affording of opportunity to the
C   ·members of the Selection Board before cancelli!1g the select list, set aside
     the order issued by the appellant and directed the appellant to appoint in
     the available vacancies the candidates from the cancelled select list in
     preference to candidates from the select list prepared by the newly con-
     stituted Selection Board.

D        Being aggrieved by the Tribunal's order the appellant preferred the
    present appeal by special leave.

         On behalf of the appellant it was contended that affording of an
    opportunity to the members of the Selection Board before cancelling the
E   select list being neither a requirement of law nor a requirement of any of
    the principles of natural justice, it could not have been made the sole
    ground for setting aside the order issued by the appellant.

          On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the select list of
    candidates prepared by the earlier Selection Board has been cancelled by
F   the appellant though there was no proof of corruption charges against the
    members of the Selection Board; and that an opportunity of hearing ought
    to have been given to the candidates in the select list before it was
     cancelled.

           Allowing the appeal, this Court,
G
           HELD : I. The order made by the appellant-Administration cancell-
     ing the select list cannot but be regarded as the right and just one. Such
     an order cannot be vitiated on the ground that it had been made without
     affording an opportunity of hearing to the members of the Selection Board
H    who had prepared it. Further, such an order cannot be vitiated either
               UNION TE!1.RITORY v. DlLBAGH SINGH                         313

because no direct evidence was made available to prove corruption char~          A
ges against the members of the Selection Board in the matter of award of
interview marks by them so as to tilt the balance in favour of candidates
with poor educational qualifications and against the candidates with high
educational qualifications or because there was no opportunity of hearing
afforded to the candidates in the select list to sustain it before its cancel-
lation by the appellant-Administration. [318-C-FJ
                                                                                 B

      2. Affording of an opportunity of hearing by an Administration to
the members of a Selection Board constituted by it, before cancelling a
dubious select list of candidates for appointment to civil posts prepared
by such Selection Board is not and cannot be a requirement of either law         C
or any principle of natural justice. It is so for the reason that no member
of a Selection Board acquires any vested right or interest in sustaining a
select list prepared by the Selection Board. Besides, there is no personal
right or interest of any member of a Selection Board which could be
adversely affected by the Administration cancelling a select list of can-
didates prepared by the Selection Board when it is found to have been            D
prepared by the Selection Board, in unfair and injudicious manner.
                                                           [318-G, H; 319-A]

       3. The select list, which was cancelled by the appellant-Administra-
tion was found by it to have been prepared in unfair and injudicious             E
manner, in that, the interview marks purported to have been awarded by
the members of the Selection Board for the performance of candidates at
their interview were either inflated to push up the candidates who had got
poor marks for their educational qualifications or deflated to pull down
the candidates who had got high marks for their educational qualifica-
tions. That select list was also found to have been prepared without             F
adopting common eligibility criteria for all candidates. When the said
reasons formed the basis for the appellant-Administration to cancel the
select list, the fact that charges of corruption levelled against the members
of the Selection Board in the preparation of that select list had not been
established by direct evidence produced in that regard, can make no              G
difference. [319-E-H]

      4. Since it is accepted that a candidate who finds a place in the select
list as a candidate selected for appointment to a civil post, does not
acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence
of any specific Rule entitling him for such appointment and he could be H
    314                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the Administration does so
    either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a necessary
    concomitant that such candidate even if he has a legitimate expectation or
    being appointed in such posts due to his name finding a place in the select
    list or candidates, cannot claim to have a right to be hear<! before suc!J
    select list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily.
B
                                                                      [321-B, C]

          Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India, JT (1991) 2 SC 380, relied on.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4649 of
c 1992.
          From the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.1991 of.the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in Regn. No. OA-139-CH of 1990.

          Raj Birbal for the appellant.
D
          S.S. Nijjar, Bhal Singh Malik and Vishal Malik for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          VENKATACHALA, J. Leave granted.
E
          The short question arising for our decision in this Appeal is, whether
    the Order by which the Chandigarh Administration cancelled the select list
    of candidates for appointment as Conductors in the Chandigarh Transport
    Undertaking (CTU) prepared by a Selection Board constituted therefor,
    because of its view of that select list not having been prepared in a fair and
F   judicious manner, was liable to be interfered with by the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal (CAT) on the ground of that Order having not been
    made after affording an opportunity of hearing thereon to the members of
    the concerned Selection Board.

          The facts giving rise to the said question lie in a narrow compass. In
G the year 1989, there arose 32 vacancies of conductors in CTU of Chan-
    digarh Administration. As there were no Statutory Rules governing the
    filling up of such vacancies, the Regional Employment Exchange of the
    Union Territory of Chandigarh was required to sponsor the names of
    eligible candidates while a thre~-member Selection Board constituted by
H   the Chandigarh Administration \\'as required to prepare a select list of 32
   UNION TERRITORY v. DILBAGH SINGH [VENKATACHALA J.] 315

candidates out of such· candidates. Thal Selection Board interviewed as A
many as 446 candidates so sponsored by the Regional Employment Ex-
change and prepared a select list of 32 candidates on the basis of marks
awardable for their educational qualifications plus the marks awarded for
their performance at the interview, a criteria which was said to have been
followed by a Selection Board constituted for a similar purpose in the year B
1953. That criteria, although required the award of marks foe the educa-
tional qualification possessed by a candidate upto 110, enabled every
member of the Selection Committee to award marks for such candidate's
performance at the interview upto 20. The select list of 32 candidates meant
to fill the 32 vacancies of conductors in CTU, when was announced on
September 11, 1989, it invited severe criticism from the members of both       c
the public and the Press as to the role of the members of the Selection
Board in the matter of its preparation. The select list, according to the
criticism, was the amalgum of favourtism, nepotism and even corruption
resorted to by the members of the Selection Board. The Chandigarh
Administration which could not ignore such criticism, got examined the D
select list with reference to the marks awardable to the candidates for their
educational qualifications and the marks awarded by the members of the
Selection Board to the candidates as. interview marks. Such examination
revealed that the members of the Board in the garb of awarding marks to
candidates for their performance at the interview had brought into select E
list the least qualified candidates who had been awarded least marks for
their educational qualifications. Such examination also revealed that
uniform standards had not. been applied to all candidates by the Selection
Board in their selection. These revelations, compelled the Chandigarh
Administration to conclude that the select list of candidates for appoint-
                                                                           F
ment as conductors in CTU had not been prepared by the members of the
Selection Board fairly and judiciously in that those members had taken
undue advantage of the marks awardable by them at the interview to favour
the candidates of their choice although there was no clinching evidence of
corruption attributable to the members. This situation made the Chan-
digarh Administration to think of cancellation of the dubious select list G
prepared by the Selection Board and of the constitution of a new Selection
Board to prepare a fresh select list on the basis of only 15 per cent
interview marks awardable to candidates as against 30 per cent interview
marks a\vardable earlier, lest the power of the Selection Board to award
intcrv:ie\v marks 1nay be utilised either to pull up unmerited candidates or   H
    316                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   pull down the merited candidates. Consequently, the Chandigarh Ad-
    ministration made an order of cancelling the select list of candidates for
    appointment as conductors prepared by the Selection Board and published
    on September ll, 1989, and constituted a new Selection Board to prepare
    a fresh select list of candidates including those who had been interviewed
    by the earlier Selection Board, according to the fresh selection criteria with
B   85 per cent marks awardable for educational qualifications of candidates
    and 15 per cent marks awardable for their performance at interview.

           The newly constituted Seleclion Board when was about to interview
    the eligible candidates for selection as conductor for CTU, the Respon-
c   dents in this Appeal, whose names had found places in the cancelled select
    list of candidates, filed applications before CAT seeking the setting aside
    of the aforesaid order made by the Chandigarh Administration by which it
    had cancelled the select list prepared by the earlier Selection Board and
    directed the 'newly constituted Selection Board to prepare a fresh select
    list of candidates on the basis of altered criteria of marks. CAT which
D
    entertained those applications, has by its Judgment dated May 27, 1991 not
    merely set aside that part of the impugned order of the Chandigarh
    Administration by which it had cancelled the earlier select list but also
    directed the Chandigarh Administration to appoint in the available vacan-
    cies of conductors in CTU the candidates from the cancelled select list in
E   preference to the candidates selected as conductors in the select list
    prepared by the ·fresh Selection Board. The Chandigarh Administration,
    which felt aggrieved by this Judgment of CAT has preferred this Appeal
    by special leave.


F         In its Judgment under Appeal, the CAT has, no doubt, expressed its
    reactions to the views of the Chandigarh Administration as to the charge
    of corruption levelled against the members of the earlier Selection Board
    in the matter of preparation of select list of candidates by it and the
    percentage of marks awardable to candidates for their performance at
    interview while examining the challenge directed against the order made
G by the Chandigarh Administration cancelling that_ select list and requiring
    the preparation of a fresh select list. Yet, those reactions are not made use
    of by the CAT as grounds for setting aside the order of Chandigarh
    Administration impugned before it. The sole ground, as seen from the
    Judgment, which has weighed with the CAT for setting aside that part of
H   the impugned order of Chandigarh Administration by which it had can-
   UNION TERRITORY v. DILBAGH SINGH [VENKATACHALA, J.] 317

celled the select list of candidates prepared by the earlier Selection Board A
in the non-affording by the Chandigarh Administration of an opportunity
of hearing to the members of its Selection Board before cancelling the
select list of candidates prepared by them.

       It was contended on behalf of the Appellant - the Chandigarh
Administration - that affording of an opportunity of hearing to the mem-
                                                                            B
bers of the earlier Selection Board before cancelling their dubious select
list of candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU, being neither a
requirement of law nor (} requirement of any principle of natural justice,
the CAT could not have made it the sole ground for setting aside of the
order by which the Appellant had cancelled such select list and hence the C
Judgment of CAT under appeal based on such untenable ground required
to be set aside. The learned counsel for Respondents-Candidates in the
select list cancelled by the Chandigarh Administration, however, did not
choose to urge that the ground of non-affording of an opportunity by the
Chandigarh AdminiStraiion to the members of the Selection Board before D
ordering cancellation of their select list, was a valid ground on which the
CAT could have rested its Judgment under appeal. But, he contended,
rather very streneousl!', that the Judgment of CAT under appeal was
required to be sustained for the reason that the cancellation of the select
list of candidates prepared by the earlier Selection Board had been made
by the Appellant (Chandigarh Administration) without proof of corruption      E
charges levelled against the members of that Selection Board in the matter
of selection of candidates and further without affording an opportunity of
hearing to the candidates in t.he select list to sustain the same.

      We shall now proceed to examine the sustainability or otherwise of      F
the rival contentions. The Judgment of CAT itself refers to the enquiry got
conducted by Chandigarh Administration about the select list of 32 can-
didates as prepared by its Selection Board. Such enquiry revealed that the
members of the Selection Board had made use of the interview marks
awardable by them for performance of candidates at interview to eliminate
merited candidates from the list and to biing in unmerited candidates, is     G
a matter adverted to in the said Judgment. Such enquiry revealed that
standards of eligibility applied to the candidates. in the matter of their
selection was not common, is also a.matter adverted to in the said Judg·
ment. No doubt, the Chandigarh Administration (Appellant) has found
that there was no direct ·evidence of corruption produced against the         H
    318                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS j1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A members of the Selection Board for the favour they had shown in the
      matter of awarding high interview marks to unmerited candidates and lo\v
      interview marks to merited candidates. Yet, having regard to the systematic
     manner of award by the Selection Board of high interview marks to
      candidates with low marks got for their educational qualifications and of
     low interview marks to candidates with high marks got for their educational
B
     qualifications, the Chandigarh Administration discerned the tilting of
     balance by the Selection Board in favour of candidates with poor qualifica-
     tions and against candidates with high qualifications. Consequently, it
     concluded that the Selection Board had not prepared to select list of
      candidates for. appointment as conductors in CTU, in a fair and judicious
c    manner. When the select list prepared by the Selection Board was thus
     regarded by the Chandigarh Administration as a dubious select list, it
      cancelled that select list and constituted a new Selection Board to prepare
      a fresh select list of candidates out of the competing candidates including
      the candidates whose cases were considered by the earlier Selection Board,
D     on a fresh selection criteria which provided for award of as large as 85 per
      cent marks for educational qualifications of candidates and for award of
      as little as 15 per cent for performance of candidates at interview, by
      making an order in that regard. The order so made by the Chandigarh
      Administration cannot but be regarded as the right and the just one. Such
      an order, as is held by CAT, cannot be vitiated on the ground that it had
E   · been made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the mombers of
      the Selection Board who had prepared it. Further, such an order cannot
      be vitiated either because no direct evidence was made available to prove
      corruption charges against the members of the Selection Board in the
      matter of award of interview marks by them so as to tilt the balance in
      favour of candidates with poor educational qualificatio:is and against the
F
      candidates with high educational qualifications or because there was no
      opportunity of hearing afforded to the candidates in the select list to
      sustain it before its cancellation by the Chandigarh Administration.

             Affording of an opportunity of hearing by an Administration to the
G    members of a Selection Board constituted by it, before cancelling a dubious
     select list of candidates for appointment to civil posts prepared by such
     Selection Board is not and cannot be a requirement of either law or any
     principle of naturaJ justice. It is so for the reason that no member of a
     S_election B·oard acquires any vested right or interest in sustaining a select
H    list" prepared by the Selection Board. Besides, there is no personal right
       UNION TERRITORY v. DILBAGH SINGH \VENKATACHALA, J.] 319

    or interest of any member of a Selection Board which could be adversely .A
    effected, by the Administration cancelling a select list of candidates
    prepared by Selection Board when it is found to have been prepared by
    the Selection Board in unfair and injudicious manner. Therefore, there can
    arise no need to any Administration to afford an opportunity of hearing to
    the members of the Selection Board before cancelling a dubious select list
    of candidates for appointment to civil posts, prepared by it. Hence, we B
    must hold that the CAT was wholly wrong in setting aside the Chandigarh
    Administration's Order by which the dubious select list of candidates for
    appointment as conductors in CTU prepared by Selection Board con-
    stituted by it had been cancelled, on its erroneous view that non-affording
    of an opportunity of hearing to the members of the Selection Board ·before         c
    cancelling its select list had vitiated that Order. This would be our answer
    to the question adverted to at the outset.


          Coming to the contentions of the learned counsel for Respondents
    (selectees in the cancelled select list) that the Chandigarh Administration D
    when had found no direct evidence which could establish charges of
    corruption levelle.d against the members of the Selection Board in the
    matter of preparation of select list of conductors for appointment as
    conductors in its CTU, it should not .have made an order cancelling the
    select list, all that could be said is, that failure on the part of complainants   E
    to establish charges of corruption levelled against the members of the
    Selection Board could not have saved the select list, if it was otherwise
    found to be dubious. The select list, which was cancelled by the Chandigarh
    Administration was found by it to have been prepared in unfair and
    injudicious manner, in that the interview marks purported to have been
    awarded by the members of the Selection Board for the performance of               F
    candidates at their interview were either inflated to push up the candidates
    who had got poor marks for their educational qualifications or deflated to
    pull down the candidates who had got high marks for their educational
    qualifications. That select list was also found to have been prepared
    without adopting common eligibility criteria, for all candidates. When the G
    said reasons formed the basis for the Chandigarh Administration to cancel
    the select list of the Selection Board, the fact that charges of corruption
    levelled against the members of the Selection Board in the preparation of


I
    that select list had not been established by direct evidence produced in that
    regard, can make no difference.                                                    H
\



'
    320                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS j1992J SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         What remains for our consideration is that contention of the learned
    counsel for Respondents that the Respondents who were the selcctecs in
    the select list should have been heard by the Chandigarh Administration
    before it cancelled the list as a dubious one. According to learned counsel,
    non-affording of an opportunity of hearing to the Respondents - Selectces
    before the select list in which they had found places as selected candidates
B
    for appointment in the vacant civil posts of conductors in CTU should be
    regarded by us as a sufficient ground not to disturb the Judgment of the
    CAT under appeal, although the Judgment itself is not rendered on that
    basis. The contention of learned counsel in our view, misconceived and
    hence calls to be rejected.
c
           In Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India, reported in JT (1991) 2 SC
    380, a Constitution Bench of this Court which had occasion to examine the
    question whether a candidate seeking appointment to a civil post can be
    regarded to have acquired an indefeasible right to appointment in such
D   post merely because of the appearance of his name in the merit list (select
    list) of candidates for such post has answered the question in the negative
    by enunciating the correct legal position thus :

              It is not correct to say that if 1 number of vacancies are
             11



             notified for appointment and adequate number of can-
E            didates are 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 I.heir selection they do not acquire
F            any right to the post. Unless the relevant Recruitment
             Rules so indicate, the Stele 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
G            any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the
             comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the
             recruitm·ent 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
H             decisions in the State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander
   UNION TERRITORY"· DILBAGH SINGH \VENKATACHALA, J.] 321

        Marwaha and others. [1974] 1 SCR 165; Miss Ntelirna                       A
        Shangla v. State of Haryana and others, [1986] 4 SCC 268,
        or Jitendra Kumar ahd others v. State of Punjah and others:
        (1985[ 1 SCR 899.".

       If we have regard to the above enunciation that a candidate who finds
a place in the select list as a candidate selected for appointment to a ci\il     B
post, does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post
in the absence of any specific Rule entitling him for such appointment and
he could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the Administra-
tion does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a
necessary concomitant that such candidate even if has a legitimate expec-         C
talion of being appointed in such posts due to his name finding a place in
the select list of candidates, cannot claim to have a right l<> be heard before
such select list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not
arbitrarily: In the instant case, when the Chandigarh Administration which
received the complaints about the unfair and injudicious manner in which
select list of candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU was                D
 prepared by the Selection Board constituted for the pt"pose, found those
complaints to be well founded on an enquiry got made in that regard, we
are unable to lind that the Chandigarh Administration had acted either
arbitrarily or without bona fide and valid reasons in cancelling such dubious
select list. Hence, the contentions of the learned counse! for the Respon-        E
dents as to the sustainability of the Judgment of CAT under appeal on the
ground of non-affording of an opportunity of hearing to the Respondents
 (candidates in the select lic,t) is a misconceived one and is consequently
 rejected.

     In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the Judgment under            F
appeal, and reject the applications made by Respondents before CAT,
Chandigarh. However, in the facts and circumstances of this appeal, we
make no order as to costs.

G.N.                                                          Appeal allowed.