2021 Supreme(SC) 53

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, INDU MALHOTRA, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
GAJANAN BABULAL BANSODE & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.104 OF 2021
Decided on : 05-02-2021

IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment – Authority cannot fill up more than notified number of vacancies advertised as recruitment of candidates in excess of notified vacancies would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of Constitution of India.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Appointment – It is well-settled in service jurisprudence that authority cannot fill up more than notified number of vacancies advertised as recruitment of candidates in excess of notified vacancies would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of Constitution of India. (Para 15)

(B) Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995 – Rules 4 and 5 – Constitution of India – Article 320 – Election of candidates to post of Police Sub Inspector – Rule 4 of Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995 provides a quota of 25% for promotion through Local Departmental Examination – Appointment of 636 additional candidates would have effect of distorting quota of 25% prescribed by Rule 4, and curtail future promotion opportunities of candidates who had either failed in LDCE-2016, or who were not eligible on account of age, experience and educational qualification – Denial of promotional avenues to Petitioners in foreseeable future would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India – Article 320(3)(a) of Constitution of India provides that Union Public Service Commission, or State Public Service Commission shall be consulted on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts – State of Maharashtra has issued impugned G.R. dated 22.04.2019, without any consultation or prior approval by MPSC, which expressed its disapproval of decision taken by Government unilaterally to make these appointments without any consultation – Government would be required to establish before Tribunal as to whether there were any extra-ordinary circumstances which have warranted exercise of power under Rule 5, which may be resorted to only in rare and exceptional circumstances – Impugned G.R. seeks to fill up double the number of vacancies which were notified for the LCDE – 2016 by Circular dated 27.06.2016 – Authority cannot fill up more than notified number of vacancies advertised – Tribunal has vacated Order of status quo on the ground that two of Applicants had participated in examination, but failed to qualify – This could not be a justifiable ground to vacate interim Order, since promotional prospects of Petitioners would be seriously prejudiced, since a block of 636 additional candidates would be appointed as Police Sub-Inspectors over and above Applicants – Order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which vacated interim Order and Order passed by Bombay High Court in W.P. set aside – Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench directed to decide pending O.A. within a period of six months. (Paras 8, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 21)

Facts of the case:

MPSC recommended the names of 828 candidates, out of which 642 were from the open category, who had secured 253 marks and above; and 186 candidates were from the various reserved categories, who had secured 230 marks and above, on the basis of the corrected final result declared on 12.12.2017. Home Department, Government of Maharashtra vide a Government Resolution No. Police -1818/ File 355/Pol 5A dated 22.04.2019 notified that the Cabinet had taken a policy decision to accommodate 636 additional candidates who had secured more than 230 marks in the LDCE – 2016 examination.

Findings of Court:

Rule 5 of the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, if in the opinion of the Government, the exigencies of service require, the ratio prescribed for appointment by promotion, on the basis of Limited Departmental Examination or nomination, may be relaxed with the prior consultation of the Commission. The Government would be required to establish before the Tribunal as to whether there were any extra-ordinary circumstances which have warranted the exercise of power under Rule 5, which may be resorted to only in rare and exceptional circumstances.

Result : Civil Appeal allowed