Supreme Court Allows Continuation of Service Despite Relaxation of Experience: Sunil Shamrao Jadhav vs. Kolhapur Municipal Corporation (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 12 July 2018

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

Can a municipal corporation relax the mandatory experience criteria for direct recruitment to fill vacant posts? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of Assistant Traffic Inspectors in the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation. The court considered the practical implications of quashing appointments made over two decades ago, especially when the corporation was facing a severe shortage of staff. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

Case Background

In 1992, the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation issued a notice inviting applications for 16 posts of Assistant Traffic Inspectors. The recruitment was to be done through direct recruitment, as per Kolhapur Municipal Corporation Regulation No. 1 dated 16.04.1974. The notification specified that candidates must be graduates from a recognized university and have five years of experience in a transport undertaking. However, none of the applicants possessed the required five years of experience. The Corporation, invoking powers under Transport Resolution No. 119 dated 14.05.1991, relaxed the experience criteria and appointed 15 candidates as Assistant Traffic Inspectors. A trade union challenged these appointments, arguing that the Corporation could not relax the educational qualification of experience.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court ruled that the Municipal Corporation could not have relaxed the educational qualification of experience. However, considering that the appellants had already served for more than 10 years, the High Court allowed the Corporation to conduct fresh recruitment, permitting the appellants to participate with age relaxation. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court’s judgment on 12.05.2006.

Legal Framework

The Kolhapur Municipal Corporation Regulation No. 1 dated 16.04.1974 specifies that 75% of appointments to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector are to be made by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. Regulation 6 states that if no suitable candidate is found for promotion, the appointment may be made by direct recruitment, provided the reasons for not making the appointment by promotion are recorded in writing. The Corporation also relied on Transport Resolution No. 119 dated 14.05.1991, which granted the power to relax qualifications.

Arguments

The respondent trade union argued that the Corporation could not have relaxed the educational qualification of five years of experience. They contended that the appointed candidates were ineligible for the position because they did not meet this requirement.

The Corporation, on the other hand, contended that it had the power to relax the experience criteria under the Transport Resolution No. 119 dated 14.05.1991. They also highlighted the practical difficulties in filling the posts due to a lack of candidates with the requisite experience. The Corporation also submitted that out of 25 sanctioned posts of Assistant Traffic Inspectors, 10 were lying vacant. In the feeder category of Traffic Controller, out of 33 sanctioned posts, 27 posts were vacant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue was whether the relaxation of the experience criteria by the Corporation was valid, considering the practical implications and the long service of the appellants.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

The Court did not explicitly overrule any authorities.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the unique factual circumstances of the case. The Court emphasized the long service of the appellants (24 years), the dire need for Assistant Traffic Inspectors in the Corporation, and the practical implications of quashing the appointments. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the posts were vacant due to lack of qualified candidates for promotion.

The Court stated, “Having regard to the factual matrix as above, we are of the view that it is only in the interest of everybody and in the interest of justice that the appellants (and others who have been recruited along with them pursuant to the Notification issued in the year 1992) are allowed to continue in their posts as having been regularly recruited and appointed, having regard to the special facts, as stated in the affidavit.”

The Court also noted, “The posts are kept vacant on account of lack of qualified candidates for promotion.”

Further, the Court observed, “In case these appointments are quashed there will be only 1 ATI actually working and 2 Traffic Controllers eligible for promotion as ATI. Out of 25 posts, thus, only 3 posts of ATI will be filled in.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ In exceptional circumstances, courts may consider the practical implications of a decision, especially when appointments have been in place for a long time.
• ✓ A severe shortage of staff and the lack of qualified candidates can be a valid consideration for relaxing eligibility criteria.
• ✓ Municipal corporations should ensure that their recruitment processes are transparent and in compliance with the rules and regulations.

Directions

The Court directed the Corporation to take steps for promoting eligible candidates as soon as they are available for promotion.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in exceptional circumstances, where there is a dire need for staff and long-standing appointments are in place, the courts may allow the appointees to continue in their posts despite some irregularities in the appointment process. There was no change in the previous position of law, rather the court took into account the practical aspects of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, modifying the High Court’s judgment. The Court permitted the appellants to continue in their posts, considering their long service and the practical difficulties faced by the Corporation due to a shortage of staff. The Court also directed the Corporation to promote eligible candidates as soon as they become available.