Back
2009(5) Supreme 492
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Rajasthan High Court)
R.V. Raveendran and Markandey Katju, JJ.
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan — Appellant(s)
versus
Veena Verma and another — Respondent (s)
Civil Appeal No. 5699 to 5702 of 2000
Decidednon : 07-07-2009
(b) Service Law – Appointment – Appointment cannot be made in excess of the number of posts advertised. (Para 22)
(c) Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules 1969 – Rule 9 – Every fourth post to be filled by direct recruitment – There being 28 vacancies at relevant time, direct recruits had to be restricted to 7 – Moreover maximum quota for direct recruits prescribed and not minimum quota – It could be varied at the discretion of the authorities – No illegality. (Paras 22 and 23)
(d) Service Law – Appointment – Advertisement for 7 posts – Writ petitioner placed at 8th position – In absence of any challenge to the advertisement, writ petitioner has no legal right to challenge the selection and appointment. (Para 24)
(e) Service Law – Appointment – No candidate can have any claim to be appointed against future vacancies. (Para 25)
AIR 1991 SC 1612 – Relied upon.
(f) Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules 1969 – Rule 6(2) – In absence of order under section 6(2), creation of posts beyond the cadre strength does not imply increase in the strength in service. (Para 27)
(g) Words and Phrases – As far as possible – These words give discretion to the authorities – Court cannot interfere with this discretion. (Para 28)
(h) Service Law – Cadre strength – Temporary or permanent posts created outside the cadre cannot be taken into consideration for determining the strength of the cadre. (Para 29)
Facts of the case :
1. Civil Writ Petition was filed in the Rajasthan High Court by Ms. Veena Verma, an Advocate practicing in Ajmer, who was a candidate for direct recruitment in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. She stood 8th in the merit list of the selection. In her petition she claimed that she was entitled to be declared selected and appointed as on a correct calculation, the vacancies for direct recruitment in the RHJS in accordance with the applicable rules came to 10 and not 7, and the petitioner being the 8 th selected candidate was entitled to appointment against the post.
2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition but the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and directed the High Court to determine the number of vacancies as on 31.10.1994, and if the vacancies were more than seven, then consider Veena Verma for the post in RHJS.
CA No. 5701/2000
3. Applications were invited for appointment to eleven posts of RHJS by direct recruitment. The appellant and certain other Chief Judicial Magistrates filed writ petition for quashing the said notification on the ground that the said number of posts were not available for direct recruitment. They contended that ad hoc and temporary posts were being counted and added to the sanctioned strength of RHJS service to create more posts for direct recruits.
4. The said writ petition was dismissed.
Finding of the Court :
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside
JUDGMENT
Markandey Katju, J.—
C.A. Nos. 5699/2000, 5702/2000 & 5700/2000
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment & order of the Rajasthan High Court dated 30.4.1999 in D.B. Special Civil Appeal No. 410/1998. CA No. 5699/2000 is filed by the High Court of Rajasthan, C.A. No.5702/2000 is by State of Rajasthan and C.A. No. 5700 is by a promotee Judicial Officer.
2. An advertisement dated 31.10.1994 was published by the High Court inviting applications for being considered for appointment in the RHJS against 7 vacancies including the two vacancies reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and one vacancy for a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe. It was also stipulated in the advertisement that the number of posts could be increased.
3. Civil Writ Petition No. 4580/1996 was filed in the Rajasthan High Court by Ms. Veena Verma, (first respondent in CA No. 5699/2000) an Advocate practicing in Ajmer, who was a candidate for direct recruitment in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (‘RHJS’ for short). She stood 8th in the merit list of the selection. In her petition she claimed that she was entitled to be declared selected and appointed as on a correct calculation, the vacancies for direct recruitment in the RHJS in accordance with the applicable rules came to 10 and not 7, and the petitioner being the 8th selected candidate was entitled to appointment against the post. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by judgment dated 30.3.1998. But by the impugned judgment dated 30.4.1999, the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court and directed the High Court to determine the number of vacancies as on 31.10.1994, and if the vacancies were more than seven, then consider Veena Verma for the post in RHJS.
CA No. 5701/2000
4. Vide a Notification dated 21.12.1996, applications were invited for appointment to eleven posts of RHJS by direct recruitment. The appellant and certain other Chief Judicial Magistrates filed WP No. 139 of 1997 for quashing the said notification dated 21.12.1996 on the ground that the said number of posts were not available for direct recruitment. They contended that ad hoc and temporary posts were being counted and added to the sanctioned strength of RHJS service to create more posts for direct recruits. The said writ petition was heard along with DB(C) Special Appeal No. 410/1998. The said writ petition was dismissed on 30.4.1999 in view of the judgment dated 30.4.1999 rendered in DB(C) Special Appeal No. 410/1998. The said order is challenged in this appeal.
5. The recruitment to RHJS is governed by Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules 1969 (“the Rules” for short), as amended from time to time. Rule 6 of the Rules provides for the strength of the service and also provides for varying the strength from time to time. Rule 9 of the Rules provides that the number of persons appointed to the Service by direct recruitment shall at no time exceed one third of the total strength of service. It is also provided that subject to the aforesaid limit every fourth person, after three persons appointed by promotion in the service, has to be a direct recruit as far as possible. Respondent No. 1 Veena Verma contends that on a correct application of the aforesaid rules the correct number of vacancies in RHJS at the relevant time came to 10 and not 7. She, therefore, submitted that if the vacancies had been correctly calculated by the High Court she would have been among the 10 selected candidates and, therefore, would have been appointed as a result of the selection.
6. The appellants, on the other hand, contended that the writ petitioner (Veena Verma) had no legal right to maintain a writ petition for getting herself declared to be selected or appointed. According to the appellants, the vacancies had been correctly calculated on a proper interpretation of the rules and the appellant had no right to challenge the calculation of vacanc
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
