The Rules of The Game Principle III

As was subtly recognized, State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220, unnoticed in P.K. Ramachandra Iyer, Durgacharan Misra, Umesh Chandra Shukla, Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and K. Manjusree, carries instructions on the Tej Prakash Pathak issue. Subash Chander Marwaha is crucial to understand the time when the ‘process of ascertaining eligibility’, before being chosen with finality to perform a ‘public duty’, is complete and what still remains is an ‘appointment’.

S.K. Singh J in Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal, (2016) 10 SCC 484 did observe, in relation to Subash Chander Marwaha,  “if appointment is refused to a selected candidate for good reasons the candidate may not have an indefeasible right to claim a right of appointment.” What reasons are good reasons, without doubt, depends on particular facts of each case. A reading of Subash Chander Marwaha discloses ‘maintenance of high standards’ is a reason good enough.


The consistent view has been, even if the name of the candidate appears in the merit list, such candidate has no right to claim appointment [Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47]. State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 held, the existence of vacancies does not give any legal right to a candidate to be selected for appointment.  

In light of Union of India v. Rajiv Yadav, IAS, (1994) 6 SCC 38, allocation of cadre is not a matter of right.

Hon’ble Justice Hemant Gupta, Union of India v. Ms. A. Shainamol, IAS, [Civil Appeal Nos. 11480-81 of 2018].