Service Law – Appointment – A Combined State Service Examination was held in the year 1985 – In the year 1987, the Public Service Commission sent the requisition for appointment of selected candidates on the post of Deputy Collector – Two candidates did not join – So, the Commission sent the names of two other candidates including the original writ petitioner for the appointment on the post of Deputy Collector – Meanwhile, private respondent filed writ petition in the High Court, which was allowed and the commission was directed to recommend the private respondent – In compliance, the commission withdrew the recommendation of the original writ petitioner – Thereafter, the original writ petitioner filed the writ petition – The High Court directed the State to re-consider the matter of the original writ petitioner for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector considering the subsequent recommendation made by the Public Service Commission in favour of the original writ petitioner – However, the High Court clarified that the appointment of the private respondent No.2 was not be disturbed in any manner – On appeal, held: The original writ petitioner cannot be appointed as on the post of Deputy Collector on which he is claiming the appointment as private respondent was already appointed pursuant to the order passed by the High Court and that there was no vacant post and even no supernumerary post can be created – Despite that, the High Court directed the State to appoint the original writ petitioner solely on the basis of some subsequent recommendation by the Public Service Commission – Even the observation made by the High Court that the original writ petitioner be appointed without disturbing the appointment of the private respondent cannot be sustained – This is because two persons cannot be directed to be appointed to a single post – Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside – Further, the State and the private respondent have brought to notice that during the pendency of the present proceedings, original writ petitioner has retired in the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner on 31.08.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation and therefore also the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is not capable of being implemented.
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.