Back
1997(8) Supreme 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Sujata V. Manohar & D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Surinder Singh & Ors. etc. -Appellants
versus
State of Punjab & Anr. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5807 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23952 of 1996)
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 5808-5810 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5570, 562 and 11939/97)
Decided on 27-8-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : P.P. Rao, R.K. Jain, Sr. Advocates, P.P. Singh, (A.V. Palli) Advocate for Ms. Rekha Palli, (R.K. Talwar) Advocate. for Prem Malhotra, and A. Sharan, Advocates
Held : It is in no uncertain words that this Court has held that it would be improper exercise of power to make appointments over and above those advertised. It is only in rare and exceptional circumstances and in emergent situation that this rule can be deviated from. It should be clearly spelled out as to under what policy such a decision has been taken. Exercise of such power has to be tested on the touch stone of reasonableness. Before any advertisement is issued, It would, therefore, be incumbent upon the authorities to take into account the existing vacancies and anticipated vacancies. It is not as a matter of course that the authority can fill up more posts than advertised. (Para 14)
In the case of Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers Association (1994 Supp. (2) SCC 591), this Court has explained the scope and intent of a waiting list and how it is to operate in service jurisprudence. It cannot be used as a perennial source of recruitment filling up the vacancies not advertised. The Court also did not approve the view of the High Court that since vacancies had not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed. Candidates in the waiting list have no vested right to be appointed except to the limited extent that when a candidate selected against the existing vacancy does not join for some reason and the waiting list is still operative. (Para 13)
(ii) Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeals-High Court had cancelled appointment of 7737 candidates which was over and above 2461 posts advertised-State advertised in 1992 for filling up of 2461 vacancies to teachers-7737 posts had become available for appointment between date of advertisement and the date when interview process was completed-State Government filled up all available posts of 7737 out of applicants who had applied against advertisement published in 1992-Writ petitions-Appointment of 7737 candidates quashed-Selection and appointments of candidates upto number of posts advertised upheld - Appeals - State Government s decision to appoint such candidates whose appointment quashed, on ad hoc basis for 89 days-Upheld -High Court issued various directions for filling up future vacancies-Order to continue services of candidates on ad hoc basis till availability of candidates selected on regular basis-Appellants continuing on ad hoc basis claimed regular appointment-Selection process of about 22,000 teachers has been completed or under completion-No ground to invalidate impugned judgment of High Court.
Held that no exceptional circumstance existed or there was any emergent situation for the State to deviate from the principle of limiting the number of appointments so advertised. In our view, the High Court was right in setting aside the appointments of teachers over and above those advertised. The State accepted the judgment of the High Court and did not come up in appeal in this Court. However, to get over the situation created because of the fact that more vacancies of teachers were noticed during the period of interview, it appointed candidates more than the number of posts advertised on ad hoc basis and continued them as such till fresh process of selection was gone into. Admittedly, that process is on and in various writ petitions the High Court has been issuing directions from time to time extending the ad hoc appointments and in the meanwhile to complete the process of fresh selection. As noticed above, selection of 10,000 more candidates for appointment to various categories of teachers had already been completed and selection process of about 22,000 more such teachers has either been completed by now or under completion. We do not think at this stage that we should interfere in the matter and set the clock back particularly when we find no ground to invalidate the impugned judgment of the High Court. In the present appeals, there is no appellant who can claim to fall within the first 2461 posts for which advertisement was issued. (Para 15)
No, the judgment does not establish that a waitlist or merit list can be extended if delays in appointments are caused by factors beyond the candidates' control, such as a court-ordered stay. (!) (!)
Instead, it holds that a waiting list cannot be treated as a perennial or infinite source of recruitment for unadvertised vacancies, even if vacancies arise later or processes are delayed, as this would deprive eligible fresh candidates of opportunities and allow improper exercise of power. [1000024350011][1000024350012][1000024350013]
Candidates on a waiting list have no vested right to appointment beyond the limited circumstance where a selected candidate against an existing vacancy does not join while the list is still operative; once the list lapses (e.g., due to time passage), no claim arises for future vacancies. [1000024350007][1000024350012]
Even where court interventions (such as stays on judgments) delayed fresh selection processes and prevented new appointments, this did not justify extending or reviving the original list for regularization; ad hoc arrangements were permitted temporarily, but appellants from the original process (outside advertised posts) had no equity or right to claim regularization over fresh selections. [1000024350008][1000024350014][1000024350015]
Appointments must strictly adhere to advertised vacancies unless rare exceptional circumstances or emergent situations exist with a clear policy decision tested for reasonableness; no such circumstances were found here despite intervening vacancies and process delays. [1000024350013][1000024350014]
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's quashing of excess appointments, dismissed appeals seeking reinstatement or regularization, vacated interim orders, and declined to interfere with ongoing fresh recruitments. [1000024350014][1000024350015] (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Leave granted.
There are four appeals.
2. Two appeals arising out of SLP No. 23952/96 and SLP No. 5570/97 are against the judgment dated September 28, 1994 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a batch of writ petitions Nos. 5985/94, 12105/94 and others. By the impugned judgment, the High Court had cancelled the appointment of 7737 candidates for the posts of different categories of teachers which was over and above 2461 such posts which had been advertised for being filled up. While SLP No. 23952/96 is barred by limitation of 673 days, SLP No. 5570/97 is barred by 756 days. As we will presently see, there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay and rather the appellants have acted as opportunists in coming to this Court.
3. Two more appeals arising out of SLP No. 11939/97 and SLP No. 562/97 are against two other judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in different writ petitions but challenge again is in effect against the judgment dated September 28, 1994 of the High Court mentioned above. These two SLPs are though within the period of limitation.
4. The State advertised on August 19, 1992 for filling up of 2461 vacancies of teachers but between this date and June 22, 1994 when the interview process was completed and postings were made, 7737 posts of various categories of teachers had become available for appointment. The State Government keeping in view the interest of the students filled up all the available posts of 7737 out of the applicants who had applied against advertisement published on August 19, 1992. This action of the State Government was challenged in batch of writ petitions in the High Court by the petitioners who claimed to be higher in merit than those who were appointed against 7737 posts. As noted above the High Court by its judgment dated September 28, 1994 quashed the appointment of 7737 candidates and upheld the selection and appointments of candidates upto the number of posts advertised.
5. Aggrieved by this judgment of the High Court dated September 28, 1994 some of the candidates whose appointments had thus been set aside filed special leave petitions in this Court, these being SLP Nos. 11728-11773/95 which were dismissed on May 1, 1995 by the following order :
"Court fee in one set may be treated as sufficient.
SLP is heard on merits and is dismissed."
A review petition was also dismissed by order dated February 7, 1996. In our view, therefore, the judgment of the High Court dated September 28, 1994 became final and could not, therefore, be subject matter of appeals arising out of SLP Nos. 23952/96 and 5570/97. These appeals are also by candidates whose appointment had been set aside by the High Court being over and above the number of posts advertised. The State Government, it would appear, accepted the judgment of the High Court as it did not come up in appeal to this Court.
6. The matter, however, did not end there. The State Government after the judgment dated September 28, 1994 took a decision that the candidates who were selected in order of merit and whose appointments had not been approved by the High Court might be appointed on ad hoc basis for 89 days at a time and that this would be a stop gap arrangement and that the process of further recruitment might be restarted by inviting fresh applications through advertisement. This action of the State Government was again challenged in various writ petitions in the High Court being Writ Petition No. 18331/94 and batch of other writ petitions. These writ petitions were disposed of by order dated March 28, 1995 and the action of the State Government giving ad hoc appointments on 89 days basis was upheld but at the same time the High Court issued various directions for filling up future vacancies. It is, however, not necessary for us to set out those directions. The High Court in its judgment dated March 28, 1995 noted an order dated January 10, 1995 of another Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 14347/97 where als
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
