The Supreme Court has ruled that a State is not obligated to fill all vacancies if the rules governing the process do not explicitly require it to do so. Additionally, the court emphasized that merely qualifying the selection process does not grant a candidate an indefeasible right to be appointed to a position.

In the said matter, Supreme Court has rejected an appeal filed by a man who was denied appointment to the position of Additional District Judge in Haryana, even though he had been included in the final selection list.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal dismissed the plea by Sudesh Kumar Goyal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's 2010 judgement declining him any relief.

Case Brief -

The appellant's grievance was rooted in the fact that, despite successfully passing the written examination and interview, and securing the 14th position in the merit list, he was not appointed during the selection and recruitment process for 22 officers in the Haryana Superior Judicial Service, which commenced in 2007.

He argued that the first 13 candidates on the merit list were appointed, and one of those 13 candidates resigned after joining the service. Therefore, he contended that his right to appointment should not be thwarted through the adoption of an arbitrary approach.

The bench, however, said, "The relevant rules of 2007, do not oblige the State to fill up all the vacancies advertised."

"If one of the selected candidates joins and then resigns, it gives rise to a fresh vacancy which could not have been filled up without issuing a proper advertisement and following the fresh selection process," the bench said.

The court declined to interfere with the HC's order, also noting the process of recruitment was started in 2007, and 16 years have passed by in between.

"It would be a travesty of justice to keep open the selection process for such a long time and to direct at this stage to make any appointment on the basis of a selection process initiated so far back," the bench said.

Case Title: SUDESH KUMAR GOYAL vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.