Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 102

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
Anmol Kumar Tiwari & Ors. – Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 429-430 of 2021 WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 431-434 of 2021 Civil Appeal No.435 of 2021 Civil Appeal Nos.436-477 of 2021 Civil Appeal No. 478 of 2021
Decided On : 18-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the parties : Mr. R.Venkataramani, Sr.Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv. Ms. Sujata Muni, Adv. Mr. Deepak Nargolkar Sr.Adv. Ms. Prerna Singh. Adv. Ms. Kripa Shankar Prasad, AOR Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr.Adv. Ms. Ritu Rajkumari, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar, AOR Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Sujata Muni, Adv. Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv. Mr. Surendra Singh Rana Adv. Mr. Ikshit Singhal Adv. Mr. Jeetendra Kumar Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Adv. Mr. Maneesh Saxena, Adv Mr. Anbarasan Nathar Paul Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Chaturvedi Adv. Mr. Mohit Kaushik Adv. Ms. Bhanu Priya Sharma Adv. For M/s Mukesh Kumar Singh & Co. AOR Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AAG Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Bhaswati Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Mr. Parijat Kishore, AOR Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Anupam Bhati, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Ram Nath, Adv. Ms. Malvika Raghavan, Adv. Ms. Sheeba Fakhruddin Adil, Adv. Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr. Shantanu Jugtawat, Adv Mr. Prashant Agarwal, Adv Ms. Amita, Adv Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Adv Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR Mr. Akshat Srivastava, AOR Mr. Kumar Shivam, Adv. Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR Mr. Mayank Sapare, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, Adv. Mr. Pran Krishna Jana, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar, Adv. Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Selections to public employment should be on the basis of merit. Appointment of persons with lesser merit ignoring those who have secured more marks would be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
(2) Intervenors have no right for appointment for posts beyond those advertised.

Headnote:
Service Law – Appointment/Selection – Selections to public employment should be on the basis of merit – Appointment of persons with lesser merit ignoring those who have secured more marks would be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India – Intervenors in Writ Petitions admittedly have secured more marks than Writ Petitioners – After cancellation of appointments of Writ Petitioners, 43 persons have been appointed from revised select list – Those 43 persons have secured more marks than intervenors – By appointment of 43 persons, number of posts that were advertised, have been filled up – Intervenors have no right for appointment to posts beyond those advertised – Relief granted to Writ Petitioners is mainly on the ground that they have already been appointed and have served State for some time and they cannot be punished for no fault of theirs – Intervenors are not similarly situated to them and they cannot seek same relief – Intervenors have placed on record material to show that there was no shortage of vacancies for their appointment – One of reasons given by High Court for not granting relief to intervenors is lack of vacancies – However, Court not inclined to direct appointment of intervenors as selections in issue pertain to an advertisement issued in 2008 – Subsequently, selections to posts of Sub-Inspectors have been held and a large number of persons were appointed – Intervenors have no right for appointment for posts beyond those advertised – They cannot claim any parity with Writ Petitioners – Judgment of High Court upheld and Appeals dismissed. (Paras 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
An advertisement was issued calling for applications for appointment to 384 posts of Police Sub-Inspectors, Attendants (Sergeant) and Company Commanders by Home Department of the Government of Jharkhand on 01.03.2008. 1217 candidates were declared successful in written examination and were called for interview. Main contention on behalf of the Appellants is that admittedly they are more meritorious than the Writ Petitioners. After giving a direction for reinstatement of the Writ Petitioners, the High Court erred in not directing appointment of the intervenors in the Writ Petitions as they are higher in merit. It was submitted on their behalf that relief was not given to them by the High Court only because of the statement made by the State Government that there were no vacancies in which they could be adjusted.
Findings of Court:
Relief granted to Writ Petitioners is mainly on the ground that they have already been appointed and have served the State for some time and they cannot be punished for no fault of theirs. The intervenors are not similarly situated to them and they cannot seek the same relief. The other ground taken by intervenors in the Writ Petitions before us is that relief was denied to them only on the basis of a wrong statement made on behalf of the State Government that there were no vacancies.
Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. An advertisement was issued calling for applications for appointment to 384 posts of Police Sub-Inspectors, Attendants (Sergeant) and Company Commanders by the Home Department of the Government of Jharkhand on 01.03.2008. 1217 candidates were declared successful in the written examination and were called for interview. The final result was published and 382 candidates were selected against 384 vacancies as candidates belonging to SC Quota for the two posts of Sergeant were not available. A HighLevel Committee was constituted by the State Government to examine the irregularities in the selection process. A report was submitted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), State of Jharkhand in which it was found that the select list was prepared wrongly by ignoring merit of candidates and by giving undue importance to the preferences given by them. Unsuccessful candidates filed Writ Petitions in the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. During the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the appointments of 42 candidates made on the basis of the original select list were cancelled. 43 persons were appointed on the basis of the revised select list that was prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee headed by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand. In view of the developments during the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the High Court of Jharkhand disposed of the Writ Petitions giving liberty to aggrieved persons to challenge the revised select list.

2. 42 persons filed Writ Petitions being aggrieved by the termination of their services. The Appellants in the Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.24404-24405 of 2019 and Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26302-26305 of 2019 filed applications for intervention in the Writ Petitions before the High Court. The Writ Petitions filed by the 42 persons whose services were terminated were allowed by a judgment dated 12.08.2016. A learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the appointment of the Writ Petitioners was irregular. The authorities prepared a revised select list after correcting the irregularities and appointed 43 persons on the basis of their merit in accordance with the Rules. As the Writ Petitioners were appointed after completion of their training and have served the State for a considerable period, the High Court was of the opinion that they should be appointed against existing/ anticipated or future vacancies. Their appointments were directed to be treated as fresh appointments and they were to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the revised merit list. The High Court observed that the Writ Petitioners cannot be held responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in the matter of their selection and there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on their part.

3. Insofar as the intervenors are concerned, the High Court was aware that they secured more marks than the Writ Petitioners. However, the High Court observed that they cannot be said to be similarly situated to the Writ Petitioners. Accepting the statement made on behalf of the Government that there were no vacancies in which the intervenors could be considered for appointment, the High Court refused to grant any relief to the intervenors.

4. The State of Jharkhand and the intervenors in the Writ Petitions filed Letters Patent Appeal (LPAs) against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.08.2016. While placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., (2013) 14 SCC 494 a Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the LPAs. The contention on behalf of the intervenors in the Writ Petitions that they should also be appointed in view of their being more meritorious than the Writ Petitioners, was not accepted by the Division Bench. The reason given by the High Court for not granting relief to the intervenors in the Writ Petitions is th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document