Case Details Sudesh Kumar Goyal vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

21 September 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 10861 of 2013

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Hrishikesh Roy, Pankaj Mithal

Citation

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 414 : 2023 INSC 842

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant who qualified in the selection process for appointment to the higher judicial service of the State under the direct recruitment quota is entitled to be selected against a vacancy caused by resignation of one of the selected candidates. Service law – Appointment to the higher judicial service of the State under the direct recruitment quota - Appellant qualified the selection process but was not appointed – Appointment sought against the vacancy which arose on resignation of one of the selected candidate – Appellant could not be appointed as he was at serial no. 14 of the merit and the posts available were only 13 – Justification: Held: If one of the selected candidates joins and then resigns, it gives rise to a fresh vacancy which could not have been filled up without issuing a proper advertisement and following the fresh selection process – Appellant did not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed because he qualified in the selection process and the Rules do not oblige the State to fill up all the vacancies advertised – Respondent-State have justified the appointments and have not acted in an arbitrary manner – They acted fairly and logically without any malice against the appellant – Furthermore, selection was initiated in the year 2007 and 16 years have passed since then – It would be a travesty of justice to keep open the selection process for such a long time and to direct at this stage to make any appointment on the basis of a selection process initiated so far back – Thus, not proper to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.

Headnote

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47; Brij Mohan Lal

(1) v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 1; Brij Mohan Lal (2) v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 502 – referred to.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT PANKAJ MITHAL, J. 1. We had heard Shri Rakesh Dahiya learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for the respondents. Ms. (Dr.) Monika Gusain had appeared for the State of Haryana and was also heard. 2. The common judgment and order dated 18.05.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court deciding 12 writ petitions, more particularly, writ petition No.16211 of 2009 is under challenge in the present appeal. The bunch of the above writ petitions were partially allowed but t

View Subscription Plans →