2007 Supreme(SC) 1584

2008(8) Supreme 480
Supreme Court of india
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Jitendra Kumar & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana & Anr. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 5803 of 2007
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 21418 of 2006]
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 5810, 5801, 5802, 5800, 5804, 5805, 5807, 5806 and 5808 of 2007
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 4, 25, 40, 114, 1391, 359,
2621, 3662 and 1910 of 2007]
Decided on : 11-12-2007

important points
What would be the need of the State and how an administration shall be run is within the exclusive domain of the State. Scope of judicial review in such matter is very limited.
Selectees do not have any legal right of appointment, subject to bona fide action on the part of the State.
No appointment can be made beyond the posts advertised for.
A legitimate expectation is distinct and different from an anticipation or desire and hope.

Headnote:(a)Judicial Review – What would be the need of the State and how an administration shall be run is within the exclusive domain of the State – The power of judicial review in such matter is very limited – Therefore the notification fixing cadre strength cannot be interfered with. (Para 25)

       (2003) 3 SCC 186; (2006) 3 SCC 434; (2007) 1 SCC 174 – Relied upon.

       (b)Service Law – Appointment – Selectees do not have any legal right of appointment subject to bona fide action on the part of the State – The superior court in exercise of its judicial review would not ordinarily direct issuance of any writ in absence of any pleading and proof of mala fide or arbitrariness on its part. (Paras 30 and 31)

       (1991) 3 SCC 47; 1995 Supp (2) SCC 230; (1993) 2 SCC 573; (2000) 1 SCC 600; (2005) 3 SCC 618 – Relied upon.

       (c)Service Law – Appointment – No appointment can be made beyond the posts advertised for. (Para 36)

       (1996) 1 SCC 283 – Relied upon.

       (d)Administrative action – Public Interest – Decisions taken by one government in public interest itself cannot be a ground for review thereof at the hands of the successor government – It is not the government which is in the seat of the power, matters in this behalf, but what matters is the public interest – When in view of the overall situation including the post haste manner in which actions had been taken, to cause an enquiry to be made; suspending the process of making appointments till the result of such enquiry is obtained, per se cannot be said to be an act of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. (Paras 38 and 39)

       (2006) 4 SCC 683 – Relied upon.

       (e)Legitimate expectation or Promissory Estoppel – A legitimate expectation is distinct and different from an anticipation or desire and hope – It is based on a right – It is grounded in the rule of law as requiring regularity, predictability and certainty with the Government’s dealings with the public – The doctrine of legitimate expectation operates both in procedural and substantive matters – The doctrine cannot be held to operate in appellants’ cases. (Para 40)

       (2003) 3 SCC 485; (1993) 3 SCC 499; (2006) 5 SCC 702 – Relied upon.

       (f)Doctrine of proportionality and reasonableness – The doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to doctrine of proportionality in some jurisdictions – If the State is right in its contention that the selection process being in cloud, no appointment can be made, the Court by invoking any doctrine cannot ask the State to do so unless it arrives at a positive and definite finding that the State’s stand is fraught with arbitrariness – Instantly no such case is made out. (Paras 41 and 42)

       (2006) 11 SCC 67; (2006) 3 SCC 276 – Relied upon.

       (g)Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Allied Services and Other Services Common/ Combined Examination Act, 2002 – Section 4 – No appointment can be made beyond the number of posts advertised or against the posts which were not advertised – Therefore, any vacancy which had arisen after the advertisement made in January, 2004 or after abolition of posts on 13.05.2005, which had not been advertised, cannot be offered to the appellants herein – Any vacancy which had arisen by reason of retirement or death is also not capable of being offered to the appellants herein. (Para 45)

       Facts of the case :

       1.State of Haryana sent a requisition to the Commission in or about December, 2003 for filling up 58 posts in HCS (Executive Branch) and 44 posts in Allied Services. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said requisition received by the Commission, an advertisement was issued on or about 24.01.2004.

       2.Interviews of the successful candidates were held from 16.12.2004 to 18.12.2004.

       3.On 30.12.2004, a select list of 102 candidates was published by the Commission recommending their appointment to the HCS (Executive Branch) and the Allied Services on the basis of the result of the examinations held by it. However, in view of the ban imposed by the Election Commission, no offer of appointment was issued.

       4.In or about January, 2005, an advertisement was issued by the Commission intimating holding of combined/ common examination for appointment to 15 more posts in HCS (Executive Branch) and 42 posts in the Allied Services and inviting applications therefor from the eligible candidates.

       5.Some writ petitions were filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court complaining undue delay on the part of the State in issuing the offers of appointment.

       6.The said writ petitions have been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.

       Findings of the Court:

       No interference is required in the matter.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.