Service Law: Appointment – On facts, initial appointment of respondent as Road Gang Mazdoor – Respondent claimed appointment to the post of Overseer on basis of her qualification – Several litigations – Pursuant to the order by the High Court, respondent appointed as Revenue Assistant – Thereafter, respondent filed writ petition seeking appointment to the post of Public Work Supervisor, which was rejected – Subsequently, she filed another writ petition – Issuance of direction by the High Court to appoint respondent as Town Planning Commissioner – Respondent sought appointment but her claim was rejected – Contempt petition by the respondent alleging disobedience wherein the appellants were told to comply with the order – On appeal, held: 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 – Post of Town Planning Inspector can be filled up either by way of promotion or by direct recruitment – Respondent is not in the feeder cadre for appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector – In the absence thereof, the High Court committed illegality in directing the consideration for appointment of the respondent to the post of Town Planning Inspector – The General 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 – Town Planning Assistant Draughtsman is the feeder cadre for promotion of Town Planning Inspector and that the Revenue Assistant is not the feeder cadre nor the respondent can claim any right to appointment only on the basis of her educational qualifications – Once the appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector is not contemplated from amongst the Revenue Inspectors, the respondent cannot claim any parity on the basis of illegality committed by the Municipality – Thus, the directions by the High Court are wholly without any legal basis and, thus, cannot be sustained and is set aside.
Constitution of India: Art. 309 – Appointment to public post – Manner of – Qualification for the post is not the criteria as any appointment to a public post cannot be made merely on the basis of possessing required educational qualifications – Any appointment to a public post can be made in the manner provided by the applicable recruitment rules in terms of law enacted u/Art. 309 or its proviso – In absence thereof, the executive instructions may also prescribe the eligibility conditions for appointment to the post. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The qualification for the post is not the criteria for appointment to the public post as any appointment to a public post cannot be made merely on the basis of possessing required educational qualifications. 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. 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. In the instant case, the respondent sought appointment as Revenue Assistant only on the basis of the fact that she possesses Diploma in Civil Engineering. 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. [Para 15] [166-E-G]
1.2 The Municipality Commissioner appointed the respondent as Revenue Assistant way back in 2006. However, the greed of the respondent for further promotion or appointment to the higher post did not end. She wanted to be appointed as Town Planning Officer again on the strength of her qualification. As per the facts on record, the post of Town Planning Inspector is governed by the Tamil Nadu Municipal Town Planning Service Rules, 1970 and that such post can be filled up either by way of promotion or by direct recruitment. The respondent is not in the feeder cadre for appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector. In the absence of her being in feeder cadre, the High Court committed illegality in directing the consideration for appointment of the respondent to the post of Town Planning Inspector. Town Planning Officer Grade II is a promotional post from amongst Town Planning Inspectors, who has worked in regular capacity for a period of ten years as per the Rules. The General 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 Town Planning Assistant Draughtsman is the feeder cadre for promotion of Town Planning Inspector and that the Revenue Assistant is not the feeder cadre nor respondent can claim any right to appointment only on the basis of her educational qualifications. [Para 16, 17] [167-A-E]
1.3 Appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector from the post of Revenue Assistant in the Municipality may be illegal and not warranted by the recruitment rules. There cannot be any parity in the illegality. Once the appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector is not contemplated from amongst the Revenue Inspectors, the respondent cannot claim any parity on the basis of illegality committed by Municipality. [Para 19] [167-G-H; 168-A]
1.4 The manner in which the High Court issued directions time and again shows utter disregard to the basic principles of law and then calling upon the officers to face contempt if the directions are not complied with. The orders of the High Court are patently illegal, unwarranted and cannot be sustained and thus, set aside with cost of Rs.20,000/- as the respondent initiated totally untenable and frivolous proceedings. [Para 18, 20] [167F; 169-B] Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jagjit Singh & Anr. (1995) 1 SCC 745 : [1995] 1 SCR 126 ; Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2016)
6 SCC 532 : [2016] 4 SCR 439 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.