Supreme Court Clarifies Teacher Appointment Process: Haryana Staff Selection Commission vs. Priyanka and Others (2022)

Date of the Judgment: May 9, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 453

Judges: Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

Can a court order for appointments override the merit of candidates? The Supreme Court addressed this question while clarifying its previous order regarding the appointment of Post-Graduate Teachers in Haryana. This case revolves around candidates who had provisional B.Ed. results before the application deadline but were initially rejected. The Court clarified the process for their appointment, emphasizing the importance of merit while accommodating those who had approached the court.

Case Background

The Haryana Staff Selection Commission (the Commission) issued an advertisement on June 28, 2015, inviting applications for Post-Graduate Teacher positions. The last date for online applications was October 12, 2015. A B.Ed. degree was a mandatory qualification, and candidates were required to possess it by the application deadline.

Some candidates had appeared for their B.Ed. exams, and though their final results were pending, they obtained provisional or confidential results from their respective universities before October 12, 2015. The Commission rejected these candidates, stating that their final results had not been declared before the cut-off date. This led to a series of legal challenges.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

A Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled on October 23, 2017, that the provisional results obtained from the universities were valid and directed the Commission to interview the petitioners. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this decision, stating that candidates who had obtained provisional results before the cut-off date were eligible for consideration. The High Court also suggested that the Commission amend its rules to consider educational qualifications at the time of screening or interview. This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of eligibility criteria for the post of Post-Graduate Teachers, specifically regarding the acceptance of provisional B.Ed. results. The core issue was whether candidates who had received provisional results before the cut-off date could be considered eligible, even if their final results were declared later. There are no specific sections of any statute mentioned in the judgment.

Arguments

Commission’s Submissions:

• The Commission argued that offering appointments to all 90 candidates, as directed in the Supreme Court’s order dated September 1, 2021, would result in undue advantage to candidates who did not secure the cut-off marks.
• They contended that many candidates who were higher in merit were ignored due to the order.
• The Commission also pointed out that there were similarly situated candidates who were declared ineligible due to provisional results, and if their results were considered, they would be higher in merit than the 90 candidates.
• The Commission stated that the merit list should be based on marks obtained in the written exam and viva-voce, and candidates with higher marks should not be placed below those with lower marks.

Candidates’ Submissions:

• Candidates who were part of the 90 directed to be appointed argued that their appointments should be maintained as they were a result of a long legal battle.
• Some candidates argued that their appointments should be maintained as they were meritorious.
• Other candidates requested that if their appointments could not be maintained, they should be accommodated in other vacancies.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the Court were:

1. Whether the directions in the order dated September 1, 2021, should be clarified to ensure that meritorious candidates are not overlooked.
2. Whether the benefit of the order should be extended to all candidates with provisional results or only to those who approached the court.
3. How to reconcile the court’s order with the principles of merit-based selection.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this order. The main authorities considered were:

• Order dated 23.10.2017 of the Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
• Order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
• Interim order dated 27.11.2018 of the Supreme Court.
• Order dated 01.09.2021 of the Supreme Court.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the previous orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court to emphasize that the candidates with provisional results were eligible. However, the Court also noted that the merit of the candidates should not be compromised. The Court stated that the directions issued by this Court shall be read along with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 23.10.2017. The Court affirmed the views of the High Court. The Court also considered the interim order dated 27.11.2018 and the order dated 01.09.2021 while issuing the present directions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance the rights of candidates who had been unfairly denied consideration due to provisional results, with the principle that appointments should be based on merit. The Court emphasized that while the candidates who had approached the court were entitled to relief, this could not come at the cost of more meritorious candidates. The court also took into account that the Commission had taken an unjustified view of ignoring provisional/confidential results even when they were duly verified by the universities, which led to the long-drawn litigation.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the need to rectify the injustice done to candidates who were denied consideration due to provisional results. However, it also emphasized that the principle of merit should not be compromised. The Court considered the interim order dated 27.11.2018 and the order dated 01.09.2021 while issuing the present directions. The Court also considered that the Commission had taken an unjustified view of ignoring provisional/confidential results even when they were duly verified by the universities.

The Court rejected the interpretation of the order dated 01.09.2021 that would have allowed less meritorious candidates to be appointed over more meritorious ones. The Court clarified that the benefit of the order would only be extended to those who had approached the court. The Court also considered the need to accommodate the candidates who had been given offers of appointment but were to be denied due to merit.

The Court’s decision was to ensure that the candidates who had been unfairly denied consideration were given a fair chance, but not at the expense of more meritorious candidates. The Court emphasized that the principle of merit should be the primary consideration in appointments.

“When it comes to the question of merit, the principles of this maxim are of more serious and emphatic application.”

“In other words, any eventuality leading to the advantage of less meritorious candidates at the cost of meritorious one has to be eschewed.”

“The inter se merit would obviously depend upon the candidates facing the interview and to be appointed only if coming within the zone of selection as per the marks obtained by the last candidate in the category in which each of them had applied.”

Key Takeaways

• The Haryana Staff Selection Commission must recast the merit list based on the marks obtained in the written test and viva-voce.
• The benefit of the Supreme Court’s order is limited to candidates who had approached the High Court or the Supreme Court before September 1, 2021.
• Candidates who were given offers of appointment but are to be denied due to merit may be considered for accommodation against existing vacancies.
• The principle of merit is paramount in appointments, and less meritorious candidates cannot be given preference over more meritorious ones.
• The Commission’s initial decision to reject candidates with provisional results was deemed unjustified.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

1. The directions should be read along with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 23.10.2017.
2. The two posts of PGT Sanskrit and TGT English, which had been withdrawn, were not available for being offered.
3. The selections against the posts ordered to be kept vacant are to be made with reference to the merit standing of the candidates, treating those with provisional results declared before the cut-off date as eligible.
4. The benefit of the order is available only to candidates who approached the court before September 1, 2021.
5. The Commission is expected to recast the merit in accordance with law.
6. Status quo should be maintained until the Commission recasts the merit position and issues fresh offers of appointment.
7. Candidates who were given offers of appointment but are to be denied due to merit standing may be considered for accommodation against existing vacancies.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while candidates with provisional results should be considered eligible, merit should be the primary consideration in appointments. The Court emphasized that the benefit of the order should be limited to those who had approached the court, and the Commission should recast the merit list accordingly. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it clarifies the process for appointments in cases where provisional results are involved.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s clarification order in Haryana Staff Selection Commission vs. Priyanka and Others emphasizes the importance of merit in public appointments while also ensuring that candidates who were unfairly denied consideration due to provisional results are given a fair chance. The Court directed the Commission to recast the merit list, limiting the benefit of the order to those who had approached the court, and allowed for the possibility of accommodating other candidates in existing vacancies. This decision underscores the need for a balanced approach in such cases, where both fairness and merit are given due consideration.