Back
1996(4) Supreme 411
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Prem Singh and Ors. -Appellants
versus
Haryana State Electricity Board and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3423 of 1996
with
Civil Appeal No. 7789 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24555 of 1995)
with
Civil Appeal No. 7790 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25996 of 1995)
All Decided on 7-5-1996
Held that the selection process by way of requisition and advertisement can be started for clear vacancies and also for anticipated vacancies but not for future vacancies. If the requisition and advertisement are for certain number of posts only the State cannot make more appointments than the number of posts advertised, even though it might have prepared a select list of more candidates. The State can deviate from the advertisement and make appointments on posts falling vacant thereafter in exceptional circumstances only or in an emergent situation and that too by taking a policy decision in that behalf. Even when filling up of more posts than advertised is challenged the Court may not, while exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction, invalidate the excess appointments and may mould the relief in such a manner as to strike a just balance between the interest of the State and the interest of persons seeking public employment. What relief should be granted in such cases would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 12)
(ii) SERVICE LAW-Appointments-As against 62 advertised posts, Board made appointments on 138 posts-Selection started on 2.11.1991, completed in April 1993 -Board could have taken into account not only actual vacancies but also vacancies which were likely to arise because of retirement etc.-Board was not justified in making more than 62 appointments-However, it would not be just and equitable to invalidate all appointments made in excess of 62-Appointments made against future vacancies on posts newly created must be regarded as invalid.
Held : Selection process was started for 62 clear vacancies and at that time anticipated vacancies were not taken into account. Therefore, strictly speaking, the Board was not justified in making more than 62 appointments pursuant to the advertisement published on 2.11.1991 and the selection process which followed thereafter. But as the Board could have taken into account not only the actual vacancies but also vacancies which were likely to arise because of retirement etc. by the time the selection process was completed it would not be just and equitable to invalidate all the appointments made on posts in excess of 62. However, the appointments which were made against future vacancies - in this case on posts which were newly created - must be regarded as invalid. As stated earlier, after the selection process had started 13 posts had become vacant because of retirement and 12 because of deaths. The vacancies which were likely to arise as a result of retirement could have been reasonably anticipated by the Board. The Board through oversight had not taken them into consideration while a requisition was made for filling up 62 posts. Even with respect to the appointments made against vacancies which arose because of deaths, a lenient view can be taken and on consideration of expediency and equity they need not be quashed. Therefore, in view of the special facts and circumstances of this case we do not think it proper to invalidate the appointments made on those 25 additional posts. But the appointments made by the Board on posts beyond 87 are held invalid. (Para 13)
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
JUDGMENT
Nanavati, J.-Leave granted in the two SLPs. Heard learned counsel appearing in all the three appeals.
2. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 4012 of 1993. Along with that writ petition the High Court also disposed of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4716, 4885, 5301, 5987, 6024, 6427, 7310, 7884, 8068 of 1993 and 15534 of 1994. The High Court allowed all the writ petitions and declared the selection/appointments of Respondents 2 to 214 in those writ petitions as illegal and quashed the same. About 125 selected candidates have filed Civil Appeal No.3423 of 1996 and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.24555 of 1995. The Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.25996 of 1995 has been filed by the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board ) which appointed them.
3. Two questions which arise for consideration in these appeals are: (1) Whether it was open to the Board to prepare a list of as many as 212 candidates and appoint as many as 137 out of that list when the number of posts advertised was only 62? (2) Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the selection of all the 212 candidates and appointments of 137?
4. In October 1993 the Board decided to fill up 62 vacant posts of Junior Engineers by direct recruitment. By an advertisement published on 2.11.1991 applications were invited from eligible candidates. 15 posts were reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates, 6 for backward classes and 9 for ex-servicemen. The last date for receiving applications was 4.12.1991. The advertisement mentioned qualifications necessary for those posts and it was further stated therein that preference will be given to the candidates having higher qualification. Large number of applications were received and after screening 5955 applicants were found eligible. 893 candidates appeared for interview in July 1992. The selection committee selected 212 and recommended their names in April 1993. The Board after considering the latest vacancy position as on 11.2.1993 decided on 2.4.1993 to fill up 147 posts. Following the instructions of the State Government relating to reservation of posts, the Board distributed vacant posts as under:
1. General 74
2. SC 29
3. B.Cs. 15
4. ESM 25
5. PH 4
Total 147
It also decided to reduce the share of general category by 24 posts as there was a backlog of that many posts reserved for scheduled castes. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer of the Board who was the appointing authority was directed to fill up the vacant posts in different categories as under:
1. General 50
2. Scheduled Castes 53
3. Backward Classes 15
4. Ex-Servicemen 25
5. Physical Handicapped 4
Total 147
The Chief Engineer was able to appoint 138 candidates shortly thereafter.
Some of the candidates who were not selected/appointed and one person who became eligible soon after the last date for receiving applications challenged the selection/appointments by filing the aforesaid writ petitions in the High Court.
5. The following four contentions were raised before the High Court. (1) The Board acted in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in selecting as many as 212 candidates and appointing 147 even though the posts advertised were only 62. (2) No real benefit was given to the candidates possessing higher qualifications even though it was represented in the advertisement that preference would be given to the candidates possessing higher qualifications. (3) About 150 candidates were interviewed every day by each of the three selection committees. Each candidate was interviewed for a very short time. Thus the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
