Holding

The cancellation of the 1995 rank list was lawful and not arbitrary, as the statutory ban on appointments and other legitimate considerations justified the University’s action, and the appellants have no right to regularisation merely by being on the list.

Summary

The appellants were selected for Assistant Grade‑II posts at the University of Calicut and placed on a rank list prepared in October 1995. The University later curtailed the list’s validity to two years and cancelled it, citing a statutory ban on appointments under the Pre‑Degree Course (Abolition) Act, the creation of Kannur University and alleged irregularities in the list. The appellants argued that a 1986 Syndicate resolution fixed a three‑year validity and sought regularisation of their provisional daily‑wage service. The Supreme Court held that the University was empowered to limit the list’s validity and to cancel it in view of the statutory ban and other legitimate reasons, and that the appellants had no entitlement to regular appointment merely by being on the list. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the interim order vacated.

Issues considered

The validity period of the 1995 rank list – whether it was three years as claimed by the appellants.
Whether the University could lawfully curtail the rank list’s validity to two years and cancel it.
Whether the appellants are entitled to regularisation of service after provisional daily‑wage appointments.
Whether the statutory ban on appointments under the Pre‑Degree Course (Abolition) Act justified the cancellation.
Whether the cancellation of the rank list was arbitrary or unjust.

Legislation cited

Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedures. Rule 1

Subjects

service lawappointmentrank list validityprovisional appointmentregularisationstatutory banuniversity administrationreservationadministrative law

Judgment

A VINODAN T. AND ORS.
v.
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT AND ORS.

APRIL 26, 2002

B [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.]

Service Law:

Appointment-Assistant Grade-II in University-Selection-Preparation
C ofrank list-Cancellation after curtailing its validity to two years-Justification
. of-Appellants claim rank list to be operative for three years and University
bound to appoint them to vacancies arising within that period-University
stating reasons for cancellation, namely, creation ofnew University, abolition
ofpre-degree course and ban on appointment ofnon-leaching staff-On appeal,
D held cancellation not. arbitrary or unjust since there was statutory ban on
appointment, with limited relaxation allowing provisional appointment and
also there was no scheme of regularisation formulated by the University.
..
Respondent No.I-University invited applications for preparation of a
panel for appointment as Assistant Grade-Il in the University. Appellants were
E selected and respondent No.I-University prepared rank list. However,
respondent No.I-University cancelled the rank list prepared, curtailing the
period of the validity of the rank list to two years. Appellants in their writ
petition claimed that the rank list should have been operative for a period of
three years and that the respondents were bound to appoint them to vacancies
F which had arisen within that period. Single Judge of High Court disposed of
the writ petition, Aggrieved, appellants filed an appeal. Other appellants filed
original petitions.During pendency, respondent No. I filed an application for
permission to engage Assistants on provisional basis. Division Bench allowed
the same and appeilants were appointed on daily wage basis. Thereafter
Division Bench disposed of the appeal and the original petitions.
G
In appeals before this Court, appellants relying on a resolution passed
by the Syndicate fixing the validity of rank lists for all future selections at
three years, contended that instead offilling up the vacancies arisen, Syndicate
limited the validity of the rank list prepared in I995 to two years and cancelled
the list altogether for no rational reason. It was also urged that the appellants
II 530·
VINODAN T. v. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT 531

had been serving continuously for the last several years and, therefore, should A
be regularized in service.

Respondents contended that there was no stipulation either in the rank
list or in any University statutes stipulating that a rank list would be valid
for three years. It was further stated that the University follows the procedure
of the Kera la Public Service Commission under which the validity of a rank B
list was for a minimum period of one year and maximum period of three years.
It is submitted that the Syndicate was fully empowered to fix the period of
the rank list at two years. The decision to cancel the rank list was taken to
carve out of the major part of the territorial jurisdiction of Calicut University
to form a new University; to abolish the pre-degree courses by the State C
Government and the consequent depletion of posts and to ban the appointment
of non-teaching staff in the University. Further in any event the appellants
bad no right to insist on regular appointment merely because they formed
part of the rank list and also that the appellants could not claim regularization
because they had worked temporarily on daily wages. The resolution relied
upon by the appellants related to the Supplementary List for communal D
reservation and not to the general list. Assuming that the Syndicate had the
power to resolve in 1986 that the general rank list would be valid for three
years, they must equally be conceded the power to amend. that decision.
Admittedly they did so by which they cancelled the rank list

Dismissing the appeals, the CQlll1 E
HELD: 1. The principle that persons merely selected for a post do not
thereby acquire a right to be appointed to such post is well established by
judicial precedent Even if vacancies exist, it is open to the concerned authority
to decide how many appointments should be made. However, the selected
candidates have a right to compel such authority not to make appointments F
by travelling outside the list and to make the selection for appointment strictly
in the order the candidates have been placed in the list (537-B, CJ

State ofHaryana v. Subhash Chandra Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220; RS.
Mittalv. Union of India, (1995) Suppl. 2 SCC 230; Asha Kaul v. State ofJ & K,
{19931 2 sec 573; Shankarsan Das v. Union of India, [1991) 3 sec 47 and G
Rani laxmibai Kshetriya v. Chand Behari Kapoor, (1998) 7 SCC 469, referred
to.

2.1. Regarding de-linking of pre-degree courses from colleges in the State
in a phased manner the Empowered Committee set up under the Ordinance
completed its task of phased specification of colleges during the academic year H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A 1997-1998 and issued an order which provided for relaxation on the ban of ...
appointments of non-teaching staff to a limited e~tent, by allowing only
provisional appointment through the Employment Exchange in the
Universities "in already sanctioned vacancies." This blanket ban on regular
appointments statutorily imposed for three years was by itself sufficient
B ground for the University to cancel the rank list. [538-A, H; 539-A-B]

2.2. There was the creation of Kannur University by which several
colleges which earlier fell within the jurisdiction of Calicut University came
under the aegis of Kannur University. This took place after the publication
of the 1995 Rank List, and cannot be said to be in irrelevant reason for
C cancelling the 1995 Rank List. The formation of Kannur University had
rendered about 130 Assistants as excess staff in Calicut University. The Calicut
Uuiversity made internal adjustments pursuant to the creation of Kannur
University by which certain Assistants were required to discharge the function
of Section Officers but this would not take the case of the appellants much
further. Matter were clearly in a state of flux. What the position would be
D once the transfer of the Colleges and personnel took place could not be
determined. [539-B, C, I)]

2.3. The third reason given by the respondents for cancelling the 1995
rank list were allegations of corruption in the preparation of this list. It
E appears that there were Press reports which questioned the fairness with
which the 1995 Rank List had been 4fi'repared. Although this figured in the
decision of the Syndicate to cancel the rank list, it does not appear to have
been the price motive to do so. There was a statutory ban, with a limited
relaxation allowing provisional appointment on the one hand and the
administrative and financial consequences of the creation of Kannur
F University on the other. The appellants have not also been able to establish ..
that there were any permanent vacancies which existed during that period
which could have been filled by the University in accordance with law. Thus
the reason for cancellation of the Rank List given by the respondents cannot
be termed to be arbitrary or unjust [539-D, E, F)

G 3. In the instant case, there was a complete statutory ban on
appointments by the University from 1997 till 2000. Appellants were appointed
provisionally only pursuant to orders of Court purely by way interim relief
because of the then existing need of the University. There is no scheme for
regularization formulated by the University. Besides regularization of
H appointment of the appellants would mean appointment contrary to the order
VINODANT. v. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT [RUMA PAL, J.] 533

of merit in the Rank List. There is also nothing to show that such A
regularization would be in keeping with the reservation rules. The appellants
cannot stand in the way of the candidates who successfully competed in the

- 2001 selections for the post of Assistants. [540-G, H; 541-A)

State ofHaryana v. Piara Singh [1992] 4 SCC 118, distinguished.
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4903 of
2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.2000 of the Kerala High Court
in O.P. No. 8743 of 1998(N).

WITH
c
C.A. Nos. 4904, 4905, 4906, of 2000.

P.P. Rao, S. Gurukrishna Kumar, Ms. Srikala G. Kumar, S.R. Setia,
Dilip Tandon and A.K. Pandey for the Appellants.
D
T.L.V. Iyer, T.G. Narayanan Nair, Ms. Karthika S., N.R. Shonker,
... Ms. Malini Poduval and Ramesh Babu M.R. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RUMA PAL, J. The appellants in the several appeals, seek to assail the E
cancellation of a rank list prepared for the post of Assistant Grade-II by the
University of Calicut, the respondent No. I before us. The appellants had
been selected pursuant to a notification issued on !st November 1991 inviting
applications for preparation of a panel for appointment as Assistants Grade-
n in the University. The selection was made after a written test and interviews F
and a rank list was prepared on 25th October 1995. The appellants' claim is
that the rank list should have been operative for a period of three years and
that the respondents were bound to appoint them to vacancies which had
arisen within that period.

The appellants in CA 4906/2000 challenged the action of the University G
in curtailing the period of the validity of the rank list to two years before the
High Court of Kerala by filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge
disposed of the writ petition on 7th January, 1998 by noting the submission
af the University that:

"as and when necessity arises for employing more persons, the H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2002] 3 S.C.R.

A University is prepared to make appointments from Ext. PJ rank list.
But it is made clear that such appointees will not have any claim
either for future appointment or for regular appointment. It is purely
a stop-gap arrangement pending regular recruitment to the post".

These appellants challenged the order of the Single Judge by filing an
-
B appeal· before the Division Bench of the High Court. The other appellarits
before us filed Original Petitions also assailing the action of the University.

The University filed an application in the pending proceedings for .,.
permission to engage 40 to 50 assistants on a provisional basis for three
C months to meet the exigencies of work arising in connection with the annual
examination. By an order dated 18th March, 1999 the Division Bench granted
the University: · D

"permission to engage purely on daily wages basis 40 to 50
Assistants on work need basis. Petitioners in OP 8743/98 and 22212/
D 97 and the appellants in WA 520/98 will be sent notices and if they
respond to the said notice they may also be considered for appointment
among the 50 persons on daily wages basis".

Pursuant to this order, the appellants were served notices by the
E University and were appointed on daily wage basis.

The Division Bench disposed of the appeal and the Original Petitions
by a common judgment on 6th April, 2000. The Division Bench was of the
view that the issue had become academic but at the same time directed that:

F "when the next process of selection starts, it would be appropriate ..
if they (the appellants) are given some credit for the services rendered
by them and also making relaxation so far as their ages are concerned
in case they have become over aged in the meantime. It goes without
saying that they have the right to appear at the requisite test and
interview so that the question of giving credit for the services rendered
G by them and relaxation of age can be considered by the University".

Not being satisfied, the appellants impugned the decision of the High
Court before this Court by way of separate special leave petitions. Leave was
granted by this Court on 4th September, 2000 and the status quo was directed
H to continue until further orders.
VINODAN T. v. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT [RUMA PAL, J.] 535

In support of their case, the appellants have relied on a resolution said A
to have been taken on I 0th May, 1986 by the Syndicate fixing the validity
of rank lists for all future selections at three years. Therefore, according to
the appellants, all vacancies in the post of Assistant Grade II till 1998 should
have been filled up by the respondents. The appellants' claim that had the
rank list continued for a period of three years at least 209 vacancies could B
have been filled by appointment of those whose names were in the 1995
Rank List. They have relied upon a letter dated 18th November, 1997 written
by the Controller of Examinations to the Registrar of the University intimating
that there were 33 vacancies of Assistants and 4 vacancies of Clerical Assistants
in Pareeksha Bhavan which were required to be filled up without any further
delay. The appellants' grievance is that instead of filling up these vacancies C
a decision was taken by the Syndicate on 26th November, 1997 limiting the
validity of the rank list prepared in 1995 to two years and cancelling the list
altogether for no rational reason. In the alternative it is urged that the appellants
had been serving continuously for the last several years and, therefore, should
be regularised in service.
D
The respondents, on the other hand, have contended that there was no
stipulation either in the rank list or in any University statutes stipulating that
a rank list would be valid for three years. It was further stated that the
University follows the procedure of the Kerala Public Services Commission
and other Universities. According to Rule I:; of the Kerala Public Service E
Commission Rules of Procedure, the validity of a rank list was for a minimum
period of one year and maximum period of three years. It is submitted that
the Syndicate was fully empowered to fix the period of the rank list at 2
years. It is stated that the decision to cancel the rank list was taken in view
of the prevailing circumstances which included: a) carving out of the major
part of the territorial jurisdiction of Calicut University to form a new University F
by the name of Kannur University on 9th November, 1995, so that a large
number of colleges which had been affiliated to Calicut University were
transferred to the jurisdiction of Kannur University; b) the abolition of the
Pre-Degree Courses by the Government of Kerala and the consequent depletion
of posts and c) a ban on the appointment of non-teaching staff in the University G
by the Pre-Degree Course (Abolition) Ordinance which was succeeded by the
Pre-Degree Course (Abolition) Act, 1997 for a period of three years from the
commencement of the Act. The Act came into force with effect from 3rd
June, 1997. It is submitted that in any event the appellants had no right to
insist on regular appointment merely because they formed part of the rank
list. The respondents also submitted that in any event the appellants could not H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A claim regularisation because they had worked temporarily as daily wagers.
According to the respondents what was preserved by the order of status quo
directed by this Court on 4th September, 2000 was the situation prevailing
under the orders of the High Court viz. provisional need based appointment
as a purely stop-gap arrangement pending regular recruitment to the posts.
Although the University had retained the appellants who were serving on 4th
B September, 2000 as daily wagers with "short breaks", the University did not
need to engage assistants on daily wages any more. It is stated that two rank
lists were prepared in 1995. The main list contained the names of 378
candidates. There was also a Supplementary List containing the names of 394
candidates from various communities. Sixty five candidates have been
C appointed from the main list and eight from the supplementary list. The last
candidate appointed was ranked at Serial No. 66 in the main list. There were
many candidates above the appellants who were more meritorious and that
regular appointments could only be made after applying the rules of communal
reservation.

D We may start with a consideration of the basis of the appellants case
viz. the validity of the rank list for three years i.e. from October 1995 to
October 1998. The learned Single Judge found that there was nothing on
record to show that the rank list was valid for three years a finding which was
not upset on appeal. The appellants now seek to rely on the minutes of the
E proceeding of the Syndicate of the University on 10th May, 1986 in which
a resolution was taken to the following effect:

"85.220 : Considered the question of enhancing the maximum period
of validity of the ranked list of selected candidates for appointment,
up to three years.
F
Resolved that the new rules fixing the validity of ranked list for
three years, be approved for implementation for all future selections.
The Validity of existing lists will be two years only".

According to the respondents this resolution related to the
G Supplementary List for communal reservation and not to the general list. This
has not been effectively traversed by the appellants. But assuming that the
Syndicate had the power to resolve in 1986 that the general rank list would
be valid for three years, they must equally be conceded the power to amend
that decision. Admittedly they did so by the resolution passed on 26th
H November, 1997 by which they cancelled the rank list for the reasons stated.
y

VINODAN T. v. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT (RUMA PAL, J.] 537

The principle that persons merely selected for a post do not thereby A
acquire a right to be appointed to such post is well established by judicial
precedent. Even if vacancies exist, it is open to the concerned authority to
decide how many appointments should be made. However the selected
candidates have a right to compel such authority (i) not to make appointments
by travelling outside the list and (ii) to make the selection for appointment
strictly in the order the candidates have been placed in the list. This Court has B
placed two further restrictions on the exercise of power by the appointing
authority, namely, that the appointments to the vacancies must be made in
accordance with the Rules, if any, relating to reservations and also that the
appointing authority cannot scrap the panel of selected candidates during the
period of its validity, except for well founded reasons'. C
It is not the appellants case that the University has made any
appointments to the post of Assistants outside the rank list or not strictly in
order of merit. Let us then look at the justifiability of the reasons given by
the respondents for cancelling the 1995 Rank List.
D
On 24th April 1997, the State Government affirmed a policy decision
taken in December 1996 to de-link pre-degree courses from colleges in the
State in a phased manner. The respondents have produced a circular of the
same. date which contains the decision and notes that the process would
involve identification of pre-degree batches in the college for de-linking, E
issue of executive orders, orders stopping admission for the batches proposed
to be discontinued and suitable deployment of the staff both teaching and
non-teaching which may be rendered surplus. For protecting the service
interests of the existing teaching and non-teaching staff, it was also decided
that further appointments of teaching staff and non-teaching staff in the colleges
and university should be stopped immediately. The circular also states that F
though the decision in this regard was taken in December, 1996 "it is reported
that the private colleges and universities have been resorting to recruitment
of teaching and non-teaching staff which may become a great financial burden
for Government in future".

Following this Circular, the Pre-Degree Course (Abolition) Ordinance, G

I. State of Haryana v. Subhash Chandra Marwaha, [1974] 3 SCC 220; R.S. Mittal v. Union
of India, [1995] Suppl. 2 SCC 230; Asha Kaul v. State of J & K, [1993] 2 SCC 573;
Shankarsan Das v. Union of India, [1991] 3 SCC 47; Rani laxmibai Kshetriya v. Chand
Behari Kapoor, [1998] 7 SCC 469.
H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A 1997 was issued in exercise of powers under Article 213 of the Constitution
of India. The Ordinance (Ordinance No. IO of 1997) provided for a phased
abolition of the pre-degree course. For this purpose an Empowered Committee
was set up consisting of-

(a) the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education
-B Department - Chairman;

(b) the Vice-Chancellor of one of the Universities in the State
nominated by the Government Member;

(c) the Secretary to Government, General Education Department -
c Member;

(d) the Director of Collegiate Education - Member Secretary;

(e) the Director of Public Instruction - Member; and

D (f) the Director of Higher Secondary Education-Member

The Empowered Committee was to specify from time to time the colleges
which were to do away with the pre-degree course. Any college so specified ;,.
and which did not comply with the directive to abolish the pre-degree course
under Section 3 of the Ordinance was debarred from affiliation. Section 6 of
E the Ordinance further provided for an absolute ban on appointment of staff
etc. in the following words:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in the University laws or in any
agreement on contract, no appointment of non-teaching staff in any
college shall be made for a period of three years from the date of
F commencement of this Ordinance:

Provided that, in the exigencies of service, such appointment may
be made, with the previous approval of the Committee."

The Ordinance was replaced by the Pre-Degree Course (Abolition) Act,
G 1997 (Act 3 of 1998). The Act substantially reproduces the language of the
Ordinance which it replaced.

The Empowered Committee set up under the Ordinance completed its
task of phased specification of colleges during the academic year 1997-98.
On 3rd July, 1997, the Empowered Committee issued an order which inter
H alia provided for relaxation on the ban of appointments of non-teaching staff
VINODAN T. v. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT [RUMA PAL, J.] 539

to a limited extent, by allowing only provisional appointment through the A
Employment Exchange in the Universities "in already sanctioned vacancies".

In our opinion, this blanket ban on regular appointments statutorily
imposed for three years was by itself sufficient ground for the University to
cancel the rank list.
B
In addition to this circumstance was the creation of Kannur University
by which several colleges which earlier fell within the jurisdiction of Calicut
University came under the aegis of Kannur University. This took place after
the publication of the 1995 Rank List, and cannot be said to be an irrelevant
reason for cancelling the 1995 Rank List. According to the respondents, the C
formation of Kannur University had rendered about 130 Assistants as excess
staff in Calicut University. It is true that the Calicut University made internal
adjustments pursuant to the creation of Kannur University by which certain
Assistants were required to discharge the function of Section Officers but this
would not take the case of the appellants much further. Matters were clearly
in a state of flux. What the position would be once the transfer of the Colleges D
and personnel took place could not be determined.

The third reason given by the respondents for cancelling the 1995
Rank List were allegations of corruption in the preparation of this list. It
appears that there were Press reports which questioned the fairness with E
which the 1995 Rank List had been prepared. Although this figured in the
decision of the Syndicate to cancel the rank list, it does not appear to have
been the prime motive to do so. There was a statutory ban, with a limited
relaxation allowing provisional appointment on the one hand and the
administrative and financial consequences of the creation ofKannur University
J on the other. The appellants have not also been able to establish that there F
were any permanent vacancies which existed during that period which could
have been filled by the University in accordance with law. In the light of all
these circumstances, the reason for cancellation of the rank list given by the
respondents cannot be termed to be arbitrary or unjust.

The ban on regular appointments under the Act came to an end in G
2000. The respondents have also stated that the de-linking of the pre-degree
courses was completed by the academic year 2000-2001 with the publication
of the pre-degree results in June 200 I. The period of validity of the 1995
Rank List, even according to the appellants, had long since expired. The
University issued a fresh notification on 25th March, 2000 to prepare a panel H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A of qualified Assistants in anticipation of the lifting of the ban for vacancies
that existed and those that would arise on retirement of existing employees.
Some candidates in the 1995 Rank List sought to thwart this and approached
the High Court. On 9th March, 200 l the High Court said:

"Since the test is scheduled on 10.3.2001 I do not find any ground
B to stay the test. But I make it clear that the declaration of the result
and further proceedings will be only subject to the result of the Original
Petition".

The test was duly held. The results have been published in April 2001.
C The appellants seek to hold up the appointment of the successful candidates
by claiming regularisation on the ground that they had been serving the
University albeit on a daily wage basis pursuant to orders of Court. In support
of this prayer the appellants have relied on the decision of this Court in State
of Haryana v. Piara Singh, [1992] 4 SCC 118. The reliance is misplaced. In
that case the Government itself had appointed ad hoc/temporary employees
D who had continued for years together under orders passed by the Government
from time to time. The situation was brought about because there was no
Subordinate Service Selection Board (SSB) in existence in the State during
this period. After the SSB was set up the Government was faced with a large
number of ad hoc employees already appointed by it and serving continuously
E for a period of ten years or more. To meet the situation, the Government
formulated a scheme for regularisation of such employees subject to certain
conditions. The High Court set aside the conditions and directed unconditional
whole scale regularisation of ad hoc employees who had put in at least one
year service. This Court set aside the direction of the High Court and said:

p "Such directions have also the effect of disregarding and violating
the rule relating to reservation in favour of backward class of citizens
made under Article 16(4). What cannot be done directly cannot be
allowed to be done in· such indirect manner".

This Court upheld the scheme for regularisation formulated by the
G Government itself.

The facts of this case are totally at variance with those in Piara Singh.
In this case there was a complete statutory ban on appointments by the
University from 1997 till 2000. The appellants were appointed provisionally
only pursuant to orders of Court purely by way of interim relief because of
H the then existing need of the University. There is no scheme for regularisation
V!NODAN T. v. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT [RUMA PAL, J.] 541

formulated by the University. Besides regularisation in the appointment of A
the appellants would mean appointment contrary to the order of merit in the
rank list. There is also nothing to show that such regularisation would be in
keeping with the reservation rules. The appellants cannot stand in the way of
the candidates who successfully competed in the 2001 selections for the post
of Assistants. The alternative prayer of the appellants is, therefore, B
unsustainable.

For all these reasons the appeals are dismissed and the interim order
vacated without any order as to costs.

N.J. Appeals dismissed. C

;