LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/mohd-rashid-vs-the-director-local-bodies-new-secretariat-ors-20200115/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Mohd. Rashid vs The Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
15 January 2020
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2020 etc.
Result
Dismissed
Bench
L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta
Citation
[2020] 1 S.C.R. 76 : 2020 INSC 44
Supreme Court Reports [2020] 1 S.C.R. 76 : 2020 INSC 44
Headnote

Service Law:

Selection/Recruitment – Advertisement for recruitment on the posts in question – Challenged before Administrative Tribunal on the ground that alternative process of direct recruitment could not have been resorted to without resorting to process of promotion – Application dismissed by the Tribunal – High Court, in writ petition, allowed the case of the writ petitioners – Appeal to Supreme Court by the candidates of direct recruitment – Held: As per Recruitment Rules, direct recruitment was to be resorted to only if the posts could not be filled by promotion/deputation quota – The candidates of direct recruitment have no right to dispute the action of filling up the posts by way of promotion or deputation – The candidates cannot claim any right of appointment merely because they had responded to an advertisement.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1. The Recruitment Rules providing 50% quota to be filled up by promotion failing which by direct recruitment and another 50% by deputation quota failing which by direct recruitment are being followed by the Municipal Bodies. [Para 11] [82-B]

2. The appellants who are aspirants for direct recruitment have no right for appointment merely because at one point of time the vacancies were advertised. The candidates such as the appellants cannot claim any right of appointment merely for the reason that they responded to an advertisement. Even after completion of the selection process, the candidates even on the merit list do not have any vested right to seek appointment only for the reason that their names appear on the merit list. [Para 12] [82-C-D]

Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC

47 : [1991] 2 SCR 567 – followed.

3. Since the selection process has not been completed and keeping in view the mandate of the Statutory Rules, the appellants have no right to dispute the action of the Municipal Bodies to fill up the posts either by way of promotion or by deputation as such posts are being filled up in terms of mandate of the Rules. It is always open to the Municipal Bodies to fill up the vacant posts by way of direct recruitment after the posts by way of promotion and/or deputation quota are not filled up either on the basis of recruitment process already initiated or to be initiated afresh. [Para 13] [83-B-C]

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The candidates for direct recruitment to the posts of Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor and Collector1 are in appeals before this Court directed against an order passed by the High Court of Delhi on 1st September, 2016. 2. The candidates who were initially appointed as Lower Division Clerks and promoted as Upper Division Clerks/Head Clerks invoked the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal 2 challenging Advertisement No. 3 of 2013 dated 12th September, 2013 whereby, the respondents set in process to fill up
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →