SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 287

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. JOSEPH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2164-2172, 2173-2181, 2182-2190, 2191-2199, 2200, 2201-2203, 2204-2212, 2213-2215 of 2023, SLP (C) Nos. 20781-20789, 20790-20798, 20799-20807 of 2021, SLP (C) Nos. 967-975, 976, 2642-2650, 3930-3932, 4359-4364 of 2022, SLP (C) Nos. 6337-6339 of 2023, Diary No. 1194 of 2022
Decided On : 28-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv. Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR Mr. Rajnesh Singh Parihar, Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. Kunal Malik, Adv. Mr. Gm Kawoosa, Adv. Ms. Palak Mittal, Adv. Ms. Manjula Gupta, AOR Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Adv. Mr. Akshay Kumar, Adv. Ms. S. Janani, AOR Mr. Amar Nath Singh, Adv. Mr. Shiv Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Priya Ranjan Kumar, Adv. Ms. Beena Goyal, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.K. Rajora, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR Mr. Anish Roy, Adv. Mr. Dileep Singh Rajpurohit, Adv. Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Buxy, AOR Mr. Krishna Sumanth, Adv. Mr. Agastya Sen, Adv.

A selection process for public employment will not be vitiated by irregularities unless there is proof of mala fides or serious violation of statutory rules. The courts will not interfere with the selection process unless there are allegations of mala-fide or serious violation of statutory rules. The courts cannot sit in appeal against the decision taken pursuant to a reasonably sound selection process.

Headnote:

The Supreme Court of India ruled on the validity of a selection process for drug inspectors conducted in 2009 in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Court held that the selection process was not vitiated by irregularities and that the High Court erred in quashing the selection and appointments made pursuant to it. The Court also held that the High Court was not justified in directing the authorities to retain the successful candidates and to consider the appointment of unsuccessful candidates against available clear vacancies.

Fact of the Case:

In 2009, a selection process was conducted for the appointment of drug inspectors in the then State of Jammu and Kashmir. Sixty-four candidates were selected and appointed as drug inspectors. Some unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection process before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, alleging various irregularities. The High Court quashed the selection process and directed the authorities to conduct a fresh selection process. The successful candidates appealed to the Supreme Court.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the selection process was not vitiated by irregularities. The Court noted that the selection committee was properly constituted and that the viva-voce examination was conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The Court also held that the High Court erred in directing the authorities to retain the successful candidates and to consider the appointment of unsuccessful candidates against available clear vacancies. The Court held that this direction was contrary to law and that the successful candidates were entitled to continue in service.

Issues: 1. Whether the selection process for drug inspectors conducted in 2009 in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir was vitiated by irregularities? 2. Whether the High Court erred in quashing the selection and appointments made pursuant to it? 3. Whether the High Court was justified in directing the authorities to retain the successful candidates and to consider the appointment of unsuccessful candidates against available clear vacancies?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The selection process was not vitiated by irregularities. The selection committee was properly constituted and the viva-voce examination was conducted in a fair and transparent manner. 2. The High Court erred in quashing the selection and appointments made pursuant to it. 3. The High Court was not justified in directing the authorities to retain the successful candidates and to consider the appointment of unsuccessful candidates against available clear vacancies.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the selection process was valid and that the successful candidates were entitled to continue in service.

JUDGMENT :

B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. I.A. No. 21153/2022 for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner therein and I.A. No. 21154/2022 for condonation of delay in filing I.A. No. 21153/2022 are allowed. The delay in filing I.A. No. 21154/2022 is condoned and the legal representatives are brought on record.

3. I.A. No. 3739/2022 for impleadment is also allowed.

4. The present batch of appeals concern the selection process conducted on 8th September, 2009, for appointment of drug inspectors in the then State of Jammu and Kashmir, and the appointments published on 12th November, 2009, whereby sixty-four persons including the appellants in SLP (C) Nos. 20781-20789 of 2021; SLP (C) Nos. 20790-20798 of 2021; SLP (C) Nos. 20799-20807 of 2021; SLP (C) No. 976/2022; SLP (C) Nos. 967-975 of 2022 and Diary No. 1194/2022, were selected and appointed as drug inspectors and are serving on the said posts since 12th November, 2009. The selection and appointments were challenged before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and were quashed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar, by judgment and order dated 18th December 2015, in SWP No. 1356 of 2009 and connected matters. The said judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 29th October, 2021, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 277 of 2015 and connected matters. The appellants in SLP (C) No. 976 of 2022 have challenged the judgment and order dated 6th July, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu, whereby, relying on the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar dated 18th December, 2015, the writ petition filed by some of the appellants herein was dismissed. Hence, these appeals.

5. Succinctly stated, the facts leading to the present appeals are as follows:

    5.1. On 05th May, 2008, the Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Services Selection and Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) in exercise of the powers enshrined under the Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992, (hereinafter referred to as ‘1992 Rules’) issued Advertisement Notice No. 3 of 2008, inviting applications for filling up vacancies in twenty services. The Advertisement Notice provided the breakup of available vacancies as also the eligibility criteria prescribed under the relevant Recruitment Rules. The total number of posts advertised were 549. The said Advertisement invited applications for 72 posts of drug inspectors out of which 42 posts were to be filled from the open merit category; 14 posts were to be filled by Residents of Backward Areas (hereinafter referred to as “RBA”) and 16 posts were to be filled by various other reserved categories including Other Social Categories (hereinafter referred to as “OSC”).

    The requisite qualifications prescribed in the advertisement, to apply for the post of drug inspector, was as under:

    (a) The candidate must have a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Chemistry or a Post-Graduate Degree in Chemistry with Pharmaceuticals as a special subject of a University established in India by law or must have an equivalent qualification recognized and notified by the Central Government for such purpose by the appointing authority or the Associateship Diploma of the Institution of Chemists (India) by passing the examination with analyst of drugs and pharmaceuticals as one of the subjects.

    (b) The candidate must be a graduate in Medicine or Science from a University recognized for this purpose by the appointing authority and must have at least one-year post-graduate training in a laboratory under:

    (i) Government Analyst appointed under the Act.

    (ii) Chemical examiner of the Head of the institution specially approved for the purpose by the


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top