Supreme Court sets aside High Court order on appointment of Town Planning Inspector in service law matter: Commissioner of Municipal Administration vs. M.C. Sheela Evanjalin (22 August 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 22 August 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 880

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a High Court direct the appointment of a person to a public post, disregarding the established recruitment rules? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a service law matter, overturning a series of High Court orders that had directed the appointment of a candidate to the post of Town Planning Inspector, despite her not being in the feeder cadre for such a position.

The core issue revolved around whether possessing a Diploma in Civil Engineering entitled the respondent to be appointed as Town Planning Inspector, even though she was working as a Revenue Assistant and the recruitment rules required candidates to be from a different feeder cadre. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, emphasized that appointments to public posts must strictly adhere to the applicable recruitment rules and cannot be based solely on educational qualifications.

The judgment was authored by Justice Hemant Gupta, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao concurring.

Case Background

The respondent, M.C. Sheela Evanjalin, was initially appointed as a Road Gang Mazdoor on July 12, 1988, by the Kuzhithurai Municipality, based on recommendations from the District Employment Exchange Officer. She held a Diploma in Civil Engineering.

In 1990, she filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking consideration for the post of Overseer, as the municipality had invited applications for the post through the Employment Exchange. The High Court directed the appellants to consider her claim along with other sponsored candidates.

Her services were terminated on November 30, 1992, by the Municipal Commissioner. Subsequently, she filed an Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the decision of which is not on record. She filed another Original Application in 2002, which directed the consideration of her claim for absorption in future vacancies.

In 2005, she approached the High Court again, seeking directions for the disposal of her representation. The High Court directed the appellants to consider her representation in line with the Tribunal’s order.

The appellants’ writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s order was dismissed due to delay. The respondent then filed another writ petition in 2005, seeking absorption as Overseer. The High Court directed the appellants to consider her claim within eighteen weeks.

The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai, in 2006, communicated to the State Government that her claim was not acceptable due to irregularities in her original appointment and the absence of suitable vacancies. However, he requested the government to restore her as a NMR (Nominal Muster Roll) worker to comply with the court orders.

Despite this, the respondent was appointed as Revenue Assistant on August 10, 2006, against one of two vacancies.

After this appointment, she began seeking appointment as Public Works Supervisor, reiterating her request in 2008. Her claim was rejected by the Director of Municipal Administration on December 30, 2008.

In 2009, she filed another writ petition, which was decided on June 18, 2014, directing her appointment as Town Planning Inspector. This order was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court on March 22, 2017, which is the order challenged in the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent initially approached the High Court seeking consideration for the post of Overseer. After her services were terminated, she approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which directed the consideration of her claim for absorption in future vacancies. Subsequently, she filed multiple writ petitions before the High Court, seeking implementation of the Tribunal’s orders and for appointment to various posts.

The High Court initially directed the appellants to consider her claim for absorption as Overseer. Later, it directed the appellants to consider her for appointment as Town Planning Inspector. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order of the Single Bench, which directed the appointment of the respondent as Town Planning Inspector, which was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the legal framework governing appointments to public posts, particularly focusing on the Tamil Nadu Municipal Town Planning Service Rules, 1970, and the Tamil Nadu Municipal General Service Rules, 1970.

The Court noted that appointments to public posts are governed by the applicable recruitment rules, which are enacted under Article 309 of the Constitution of India or the rules made in terms of the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of law and/or the rules, the executive instructions may also prescribe the eligibility conditions including the educational qualifications, experience, age limit for appointment to the post.

The Court emphasized that mere possession of educational qualifications does not entitle a person to a public post. The appointment must be made as per the applicable recruitment rules, which specify the method of recruitment, eligibility criteria, and feeder cadres.

The Court noted that the post of Town Planning Inspector is governed by the Tamil Nadu Municipal Town Planning Service Rules, 1970, and can be filled either by direct recruitment or by promotion from the post of Town Planning Assistant Draughtsman. The post of Revenue Assistant is governed by the Tamil Nadu Municipal General Service Rules, 1970.

Arguments

The respondent argued that she possessed the necessary educational qualifications (Diploma in Civil Engineering) and that the High Court had repeatedly ruled in her favor. She contended that the rules should be interpreted to allow her appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector, particularly since she had been working with the municipality for a long period.

The appellants contended that the respondent’s appointment as Revenue Assistant was based on a misinterpretation of the rules and that the post of Town Planning Inspector is governed by specific service rules that do not include Revenue Assistant as a feeder cadre. They argued that the High Court’s directions were in violation of the established recruitment rules and that the respondent could not claim a right to the post merely based on her educational qualifications.

The appellants also pointed out that the respondent’s claim for appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector was not sustainable as the post could be filled up either by way of promotion or by direct recruitment and the respondent is not in the feeder cadre for appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector.

The appellants relied on the principle that there cannot be any parity in illegality and that even if some persons have been granted benefit illegally or by mistake, it does not confer right upon the appellants to claim equality.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

1. Whether a person can claim appointment to a public post solely based on possessing the required educational qualifications, without adhering to the applicable recruitment rules.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s orders were patently illegal and unwarranted. The Court emphasized that appointments to public posts must strictly adhere to the applicable recruitment rules and cannot be based solely on educational qualifications.

The Court found that the respondent was not in the feeder cadre for appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector. The Court also held that the High Court had erred in directing the consideration for appointment of the respondent to the post of Town Planning Inspector.

The Court also noted that the post of Town Planning Inspector is governed by the Tamil Nadu Municipal Town Planning Service Rules, 1970, and can be filled either by direct recruitment or by promotion from the post of Town Planning Assistant Draughtsman. The respondent was not in the feeder cadre for appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector.

The Court also held that the stand of the respondent that the post of Town Planning Inspector is governed by the General Rules, is not made out as such Rules provide for promotion for the post of Revenue Assistant to the post of Revenue Inspector but not to the post of Town Planning Inspector.

The Court observed that the High Court had issued directions time and again, showing utter disregard to the basic principles of law and calling upon the officers to face contempt if the directions were not complied with. The Court stated that such directions were wholly without any legal basis and, thus, could not be sustained.

The Court also addressed the respondent’s argument that appointments to the post of Town Planning Inspector were made from the post of Revenue Assistant in the Nagercoil Municipality. The Court held that such appointments might be illegal and not warranted by the recruitment rules and that there cannot be any parity in the illegality.

The following authorities were viewed by the Court as follows:

• Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jagjit Singh & Anr. [(1995) 1 SCC 745]*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that there cannot be any parity in illegality.
• Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2016) 6 SCC 532]*: The Court referred to this case to reiterate that if some persons have been granted benefit illegally or by mistake, it does not confer right upon others to claim equality.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the rule of law and ensure that appointments to public posts are made in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s repeated directions to appoint the respondent to the post of Town Planning Inspector were not in line with the established legal principles and the specific service rules governing the post. The Court was also concerned with the fact that the High Court was issuing directions without any legal basis and calling upon the officers to face contempt if the directions were not complied with.

The ratio of fact to law was as follows:

The court’s logical reasoning for the issue is explained below:

The Court rejected the argument that the respondent’s educational qualifications or the High Court’s previous orders entitled her to the post. The Court also rejected the argument of parity based on illegal appointments in Nagercoil Municipality. The Court emphasized that the recruitment rules must be strictly followed.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the applicable recruitment rules and the principle that appointments to public posts must be made in accordance with these rules. The Court also emphasized the principle that there cannot be any parity in illegality.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:

“Any appointment to a public post can be made in the manner provided by the applicable recruitment rules in terms of law enacted under Article 309 of the Constitution of India or the Rules made in terms of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.”

“The possession of Diploma in Civil Engineering is not entitlement to a public post unless such post is advertised and opportunity is given to all the eligible candidates to apply for the post in terms of applicable rules.”

“It is well settled that there cannot be any parity in the illegality.”

Key Takeaways

• Appointments to public posts must strictly adhere to the applicable recruitment rules.
• Mere possession of educational qualifications does not entitle a person to a public post.
• High Courts cannot direct appointments that violate established recruitment rules.
• There cannot be any parity in illegality; if some persons have been granted benefit illegally or by mistake, it does not confer right upon others to claim equality.
• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that appointments are made in accordance with the applicable legal framework.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court dated March 22, 2017. The respondent was directed to pay costs of Rs. 20,000 to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority within three months from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that appointments to public posts must strictly adhere to the applicable recruitment rules and cannot be based solely on educational qualifications or previous court orders that violate those rules. This judgment reinforces the principle that the rule of law must be upheld in public appointments, and that there cannot be any parity in illegality.

The Supreme Court reiterated the principle of negative equality, that is, Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not to perpetuate illegality and does not envisage negative equalities.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Commissioner of Municipal Administration vs. M.C. Sheela Evanjalin is a significant ruling that reinforces the importance of adhering to recruitment rules in public appointments. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, emphasizing that mere educational qualifications do not entitle a person to a public post and that appointments must be made as per the applicable rules. This judgment serves as a reminder that High Courts cannot direct appointments that violate established recruitment procedures and that there cannot be any parity in illegality.