Back
Supreme Court of India
P. SATHASIVAM & JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.
State of J&K & Others – Appellants
Versus
Sat Pal – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 938-939 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 31591-31592 of 2012)
Decided On : 05-02-2013
(b) Administration of Justice - Practice and Procedure - High Court despite closing pleadings upon State failing to file pleading - Even then instead of adjudicating the claim directing State to consider and take a final decision - State thereafter sidelining the main issue - Amounts to denial of legitimate claim. (Para 9)
(c) Service law - Appointment - Waiting list - Would commence to operate when offers of appointment have been issued to those emerging on the top of the merit list - The relevant date for such operation of waiting list would be the date of issuance of appointment letter to the last selectee - Date of representation or filling up of the vacancy is no consequence. (Paras 11 and 12)
(1999) 3 SCC 696 - Relied upon
(d) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 12 r/w High Court Rules, LPA - Jurisdiction of Contempt Court and maintainability of LPA against order of contempt court - Left undecided. (Para 16)
(2004) 7 SCC 261; (2004) 13 SCC 610; (2006) 5 SCC 399 - Referred
(e) Administrative law - State action - State is not an adversary - Its conduct instantly, not proper. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
Respondent was selected for appointment but was placed in waitlist. Person above him did not join despite offer. He then represented to be appointed in that vacancy.
When department did not take any action he filed a writ petition in which the State did not file its pleadings despite opportunity.
High Court even after closing the pleadings did not decide the case and directed the State to consider and take a final decision.
The claim of the respondent was finally rejected upon which the respondent filed contempt petition instead of fresh writ petition.
The contempt Court held that the final order was not in compliance of the Courts order and gave time for compliance.
LPA against this order was dismissed as not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
State has not behaved properly. Jurisdiction under Article 142 invoked for doing complete justice.
Result : Appeal disposed of with directions to the State.
Yes, the provided summary accurately captures the Supreme Court's key holdings and reasoning in this judgment.
The Court held that a candidate whose name appears in the merit/select list (including the waiting list portion) is entitled to consideration for appointment against a vacancy that arose during the validity period of the list—specifically, a vacancy created by a higher-ranked candidate (like Trilok Nath) declining an offer of appointment made on 22.4.2008, when the waiting list was acknowledged to be valid until May 2008.[1000524110002][1000524110009][1000524110010][1000524110011]
The Court rejected the State's rejection rationale (that the waiting list had "outlived its validity" by the time of later processing), emphasizing that the waiting list operates from the point when offers are issued to top merit candidates, with the relevant date being the arising of the vacancy (not the date of representation, processing, or formal filling).[1000524110005][1000524110010][1000524110011] (!) (!)
The Court endorsed the view (originally from the High Court's contempt order) that the authority failed in its duty to fill the vacancy from the waiting list during its validity, and thus "the fault is committed by the authority and the petitioner cannot be penalized for the same," warranting relief despite delays caused by the State. (!) [1000524110008][1000524110013][1000524110016]
Ultimately, invoking Article 142 for complete justice, the Court directed the respondent's appointment against the vacancy (with relate-back seniority but prospective wages), criticizing the State's adversarial and dilatory conduct.[1000524110015][1000524110016][1000524110017] (!)
Judgment :-
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Public Works Department of the State of Jammu & Kashmir conducted a process of selection, for recruitment against the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II. Sat Pal, the respondent herein participated in the aforesaid process of selection. He was successful, inasmuch as, he figured in the final merit/select list of scheduled caste candidates, prepared at the culmination of the selection process. Having learnt that some scheduled cast candidates above him in the merit/select list had not joined inspite of having been offered appointment, Sat Pal addressed a representation to the appellants seeking appointment against an available vacancy. In his representation, he mentioned the name of Trilok Nath as one of the selected candidates, who had been offered appointment, but had not joined. In his representation, he also pointed out, that in the merit/select list pertaining for scheduled caste candidates, his name figured immediately after the name of the said Trilok Nath.
3. Since the representation filed by the respondent remained undecided, he approached the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu (hereinafter referred to as, the High Court) by filing SWP no. 1156 of 2009. Before the High Court, the respondent Sat Pal reiterated the factual position asserted by him in his representation. To substantiate his assertion pertaining to Trilok Nath, that although the aforesaid Trilok Nath had been offered appointment against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II on 22.4.2008, Trilok Nath had not joined against the same, he placed before the High Court a communication dated 5.5.2008 issued by the Chief Engineer (R&B) Department, Jammu, narrating that Trilok Nath was not interested to join against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II.
4. Before the High Court, the respondent relied upon the prevalent rule, whereunder, a waiting list was valid for one year. The fact that the prevalent rules envisaged, that the merit list of candidates in continuation of those offered appointment, would constitute the waiting list, and would be valid for a period of one year, was not disputed even before us.
5. Despite the High Court having issued notice to the State Government in SWP no.1156 of 2009, and had required it to file pleadings, the State Government i.e., the appellants before this Court, did not file any objections. The right of the appellants to file objections was closed by an order dated 5.4.2010. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it was natural for the High Court to infer, that the assertions made by the respondent before it, were truthful and acceptable for a final determination of the controversy. Despite the aforesaid, the High Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition at the admission stage, by directing the appointing authority to examine the claim of the respondent, for appointment against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II, by keeping in mind the communication dated 5.5.2008 issued by the Chief Engineer (R&B) Department, Jammu, affirming that Trilok Nath, who was offered appointment against the post under reference, had declined to join.
The High Court required the appellants herein to take a final decision in respect of the appointment of the respondent, within a period of two months, from the date a copy of the order of the High Court was made available.
6. In compliance of the directions issued by the High Court vide order dated 9.8.2010 in SWP no. 1156 of 2009, the appellants passed an order on 23.8.2011. By the said order dated 23.8.2011, the claim of the respondent for appointment against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II was rejected for the following reasons:-
“(i) In view of the fact that the waiting list issued in respect of the recruitment has outlived its validity way back in May, 2008 itself, he cannot be granted appointment in accordance with the same.
(ii) And that for the abovesaid reason, vacancies cannot be filled at a b
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
