The name of a person appearing in a selection list is not an indefeasible right to an appointment to a given vacant position, the Madras High Court has ruled. The court held that upon an appointment order being issued, the selection list would become exhausted.
And just because a person was named in the selection list, he would not get an indefeasible right to be appointed, it said and rejected a plea from an aspirant to the post of member of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) in Puducherry.
K V Sarveswaran, a retired Puducherry government service officer, had applied for the post of a member of RERA in Puducherry in 2019. Though his name found a place in the selected list, he was not appointed.
Hence, the present petition for a direction to the authority concerned to appoint him as a member of the RERA, Puducherry.
Dismissing the petition recently, Justice R Mahadevan cited various judgements of the Supreme Court and held he was left with no other option except to arrive at the irresistible conclusion that the selection list upon issuance of the appointment orders stood exhausted.
Mere inclusion in the selection list, which in the present case was neither a waiting list nor a reserve list, would not create any indefeasible right in favour of the petitioner to directly seek appointment contrary to the provisions and hence, the decision of the selection committee to invite applications afresh, was in order.
Madras HC rejects plea of an aspirant to become Puducherry RERA member
K V Sarveswaran, a retired Puducherry government service officer, had applied for the post of a member of RERA in Puducherry in 2019. Though his name found a place in the selected list, he was not appointed.
