Date of the Judgment: 18 February 2021
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 429-430 of 2021
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Indira Banerjee, J.
Can a High Court order the reinstatement of candidates who were initially appointed through an irregular selection process, while denying relief to more meritorious candidates who were not initially selected? The Supreme Court of India addressed this complex issue in a recent judgment. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision to reinstate irregularly appointed Sub-Inspectors, while refusing to grant relief to more meritorious candidates who were not initially appointed. This judgment highlights the delicate balance between fairness to individuals affected by administrative errors and the principle of merit in public employment. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Indira Banerjee.
Case Background
On March 1, 2008, the Home Department of the Government of Jharkhand issued an advertisement for the appointment of 384 posts of Police Sub-Inspectors, Attendants (Sergeant), and Company Commanders. A total of 1217 candidates were declared successful in the written examination and were called for interviews. After the final results, 382 candidates were selected against the 384 vacancies, as candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) quota for two posts of Sergeant were not available.
Subsequently, a High-Level Committee was formed by the State Government to investigate irregularities in the selection process. The committee found that the select list was prepared incorrectly, ignoring the merit of candidates and giving undue importance to their preferences. Unsuccessful candidates then filed Writ Petitions in the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.
During the pendency of these Writ Petitions, the appointments of 42 candidates based on the original select list were cancelled. Following the recommendations of a committee headed by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, 43 individuals were appointed based on a revised select list. Given these developments, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petitions, allowing aggrieved persons to challenge the revised select list.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 01.03.2008 | Advertisement issued for 384 posts of Police Sub-Inspectors, Attendants (Sergeant), and Company Commanders. |
| 1217 candidates declared successful in the written examination and called for interview. | |
| 382 candidates selected against 384 vacancies. | |
| High-Level Committee constituted to examine irregularities in the selection process. | |
| Report submitted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), State of Jharkhand, finding irregularities. | |
| Unsuccessful candidates filed Writ Petitions in the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. | |
| Appointments of 42 candidates from the original select list were cancelled. | |
| 43 persons appointed based on a revised select list. | |
| 12.08.2016 | High Court allowed writ petitions of 42 persons whose services were terminated. |
| High Court directed that the appointments of the 42 persons to be treated as fresh appointments and they were to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the revised merit list. | |
| High Court refused to grant any relief to the intervenors. |
Course of Proceedings
42 individuals, whose services were terminated, filed Writ Petitions challenging their termination. 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. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions filed by the 42 persons on 12.08.2016. The High Court held that while the appointments of the Writ Petitioners were irregular, they should be appointed against existing, anticipated, or future vacancies, given that they had completed their training and served for a considerable period. The High Court directed their appointments to be treated as fresh appointments, placing them at the bottom of the seniority list. The High Court noted that the Writ Petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities in their selection and that there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on their part.
Regarding the intervenors, the High Court acknowledged that they had secured more marks than the Writ Petitioners. However, the High Court stated that the intervenors were not similarly situated to the Writ Petitioners and, accepting the government’s statement that there were no vacancies, refused to grant them any relief.
The State of Jharkhand and the intervenors filed Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) against the judgment of the Single Judge. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the LPAs, relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [(2013) 14 SCC 494]. The Division Bench did not accept the intervenors’ contention that they should also be appointed due to their higher merit, citing the lack of vacancies and their dissimilar situation compared to the Writ Petitioners. Dissatisfied with the dismissal of their LPAs, the intervenors and the State Government filed the present Appeals before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. These articles guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The Supreme Court has to decide whether the High Court was right in directing reinstatement of the writ petitioners who were irregularly appointed, and whether the intervenors who were more meritorious, could be appointed.
The Court also refers to the Right to Information Act, 2005 to determine the number of vacancies.
Arguments
Arguments on behalf of the Appellants (Intervenors)
- The Appellants argued that they were more meritorious than the Writ Petitioners and should have been appointed.
- They contended that the High Court erred in not directing their appointment after directing the reinstatement of the Writ Petitioners.
- They argued that the High Court’s denial of relief was based solely on the State Government’s incorrect statement about the lack of vacancies.
- They presented evidence showing that there were 1214 vacancies of Sub-Inspectors as of 31.10.2011, and even after the selections made on 27.06.2018, 550 posts remained vacant.
- It was argued that there were hardly 120 persons who are more meritorious than the Writ Petitioners and they can be appointed in the existing vacancies.
Arguments on behalf of the Respondent (State of Jharkhand)
- The State Government argued that the High Court should not have directed the appointment of the Writ Petitioners, as their initial appointments were due to irregularities in the selection process.
- They contended that after the revision of the select list, the Writ Petitioners were replaced by more meritorious candidates.
- The State Government attempted to distinguish the judgment in Vikas Pratap Singh’s case (supra), arguing that the Writ Petitioners’ service period was shorter.
- They submitted that the statement made on behalf of the Government that there were no vacancies for appointing the intervenors was correct.
- They argued that vacancies that arose after 2008 were due to restructuring of the police force and the intervenors have no right to seek appointment as only 384 posts were advertised.
Arguments on behalf of the Writ Petitioners
- The Writ Petitioners argued that the initial selections were made based on preference for the three categories of posts, but the select list should have been prepared based on merit.
- They acknowledged that the authorities revised the select list, leading to the cancellation of their appointments.
- They argued that by the time their appointments were cancelled, they had completed their training and worked for a considerable period.
- They contended that the High Court correctly granted them relief, considering they were not responsible for the irregularities in the initial select list.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| More meritorious candidates should be appointed |
|
Appellants (Intervenors) |
| Writ Petitioners should not have been reinstated |
|
Respondent (State of Jharkhand) |
| Writ Petitioners were rightly reinstated |
|
Writ Petitioners |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the High Court was correct in directing the reinstatement of the Writ Petitioners.
- Whether the intervenors in the Writ Petitions are entitled to appointment.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Correctness of the direction given by the High Court to reinstate the Writ Petitioners. | Upheld. | The High Court correctly considered that the Writ Petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities in the selection process. They had completed training and worked for some time. This was similar to the case of Vikas Pratap Singh’s case (supra). |
| Claim of the intervenors in the Writ Petitions for appointment. | Rejected. | The intervenors were not similarly situated to the Writ Petitioners. The relief granted to the Writ Petitioners was based on their service and lack of fault in the selection process. The intervenors cannot claim parity with the Writ Petitioners. Also, the number of posts advertised in 2008 is 384 and the intervenors have no right for appointment for posts beyond those advertised. |
Authorities
Cases
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [(2013) 14 SCC 494] | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to support the reinstatement of the Writ Petitioners, noting the similarity in circumstances where the appointees were not at fault for the irregularities in the selection process. |
Legal Provisions
| Provision | Description | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India | Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, while Article 16 ensures equality of opportunity in public employment. | The Court considered these articles in the context of whether more meritorious candidates should be appointed over those who were initially appointed through an irregular process. |
| Right to Information Act, 2005 | This Act provides the procedure for citizens to get information from the Government. | The Court used this to determine the number of vacancies. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The Appellants (Intervenors) argued that they were more meritorious than the Writ Petitioners and should have been appointed. | Rejected. The Court held that the intervenors were not similarly situated to the Writ Petitioners and could not claim the same relief. The Court also noted that the number of posts advertised was 384, and the intervenors had no right to appointment beyond that number. |
| The State Government contended that the High Court should not have directed the appointment of the Writ Petitioners, as their initial appointments were due to irregularities in the selection process. | Partially Rejected. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision to reinstate the Writ Petitioners, citing the fact that they were not responsible for the irregularities and had served for a considerable period. |
| The Writ Petitioners argued that the High Court correctly granted them relief, considering they were not responsible for the irregularities in the initial select list. | Accepted. The Court agreed with the High Court that the Writ Petitioners were entitled to relief, as they were not at fault for the irregularities and had completed their training and served for some time. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court relied on Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [(2013) 14 SCC 494] to support its decision to reinstate the Writ Petitioners. The Court noted that the facts were similar, where the appointees were not at fault for the irregularities in the selection process. The Court also considered Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in public employment. The Court also refers to the Right to Information Act, 2005 to determine the number of vacancies.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of fairness and the specific circumstances of the Writ Petitioners. The Court emphasized that the Writ Petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities in the selection process and had completed training and served for a considerable period. The Court also considered that they had been reinstated and were working at present. The Court also considered that the intervenors cannot claim parity with the Writ Petitioners as they were not similarly situated. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the number of posts advertised was 384, and the intervenors had no right to appointment beyond that number.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Writ Petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities in the selection process. | 30% |
| Writ Petitioners had completed training and worked for a considerable period. | 30% |
| Intervenors were not similarly situated to the Writ Petitioners. | 20% |
| Number of posts advertised was 384, and the intervenors had no right to appointment beyond that number. | 20% |
Fact:Law
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:
- The Court considered the fact that the Writ Petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities in the selection process.
- The Court noted that the Writ Petitioners had completed their training and had worked for a considerable period.
- The Court found that the intervenors were not similarly situated to the Writ Petitioners, as they had not been initially appointed.
- The Court observed that the number of posts advertised was 384, and the intervenors had no right to appointment beyond that number.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“The High Court directed reinstatement of the Writ Petitioners after taking into account the fact that they were beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in an irregular manner. However, the High Court found that the Writ Petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in preparation of the select list.”
“The intervenors in the Writ Petitions admittedly have secured more marks than the Writ Petitioners. After cancellation of the appointments of the Writ Petitioners, 43 persons have been appointed from the revised select list. Those 43 persons have secured more marks than the intervenors.”
“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 Court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Indira Banerjee agreeing on the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to reinstate irregularly appointed Sub-Inspectors, emphasizing that they were not responsible for the irregularities in the selection process.
- The Court denied relief to more meritorious candidates who were not initially appointed, stating that they were not similarly situated to the reinstated candidates and that no vacancies were available beyond those advertised.
- The judgment highlights the importance of fairness and equity in public employment, particularly when individuals are affected by administrative errors.
- The judgment also emphasizes that the number of posts advertised is the limit of the recruitment process.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a person who is not responsible for the irregularities in the selection process, and has completed training and has served for a considerable period, can be reinstated even if there are more meritorious candidates who were not initially selected. This case also establishes that the number of posts advertised is the limit of the recruitment process.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to reinstate irregularly appointed Sub-Inspectors, while denying relief to more meritorious candidates who were not initially appointed. The Court emphasized the principle of fairness and the specific circumstances of the Writ Petitioners, who were not at fault for the irregularities in the selection process. The Court also reiterated that the number of posts advertised is the limit of the recruitment process. This judgment underscores the complexities of balancing merit and equity in public employment.