No appointment against a non-existing post, even though selection was proper, says SC

Bhubaneswar: On a petition of a candidate seeking appointment for a lecturer in Utkal University of Culture even though the post has been abolished, the Supreme Court has ruled that the candidate cannot ask for being instated even though he may have been selected through proper channel, sources said here on Monday. A Bench comprising Justices A K Mathur and Markandey Katju stated that a selection does not confer the right of getting an appointment, which can be enforced by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondent, even after selection, has no indefeasible right to be appointed to the post merely because he has been selected, the Court said. The Court also dropped the contempt of court proceedings initiated by Orissa High Court against the Vice-Chancellor and registrar of the Utkal University of Culture. Besides, the Bench set aside the orders of the Orissa High Court directing the two to be personally present in the court. The petition for appointment as a lecturer and contempt proceedings were initiated on a petition filed by Satya Prakash Dash, who was selected for the post of lecturer in South and South-East Asian studies of Utkal University. The apex court in its judgement noted "the first and foremost question is whether the court can direct the State government by a writ of mandamus to appoint a person against a post which has been abolished by the State Government. Our answer to this question is in the negative." The apex court also took note of the fact that the University was not competent to make an appointment without prior approval of the State Government. The State Government had, in the process of reorganising the set-up of the University, abolished the post referred to in the case.