Service Law – Recruitment – Advertisement – An advertisement was issued on 01.02.2013 whereby the State Commission invited applications against the eight vacancies for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service – After examination, final list was declared – Names of the two appellants herein were included later – High Court held these to selections illegal – Propriety:
Held: The position of law as it stands, once clear and anticipated vacancies have been advertised, appointments can only be made on these vacancies – Vacancies which could not be anticipated before the date of advertisement, or the vacancies which did not exist at the time of advertisement, are the vacancies for the future i.e., next selection process – In the instant case, it is clear that the appointment of the appellants was made on posts which were not advertised and in fact did not even exist at the time when the advertisement was made – The anomaly made in the selection/appointment of these two candidates is quite apparent – The findings of the High Court were right – However, what the High Court missed was the context, the facts and the circumstances of the case – The two appellants have already served as Judicial Officers for nearly 10 years – Meanwhile, they have also been promoted to the next higher post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) – In this process of their selection and appointment, nothing was brought to notice of this Court which may suggest any favouritism, nepotism or so-called blame as to the conduct of these two appellants, in securing these appointments – What the High Court never answered was as to how much of this blame of “illegal” selection and appointment would rest on the High Court (on its administrative side) – Though undoubtedly the Commission as the selecting authority must ultimately bear the brunt, yet the blame must be shared equally by the State Government and the High Court – The judicial officers in question now have a rich experience of 10 years of judicial service behind them – Therefore, unseating the present appellants from their posts would not be in public interest – The appellants were appointed from the list of candidates who had successfully passed the written examination and viva voce and they were in the merit list – For the reasons stated above, in order to do complete justice and in exercise of powers u/Art. 142 of the Constitution of India, the order of the High Court as far as it quashes the selection and appointment of the appellants is set aside. [Paras 28, 29, 31,32,36,37]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Sivanandan C.T. and Ors. v. High Court of Kerala and Ors. (2023) SCC OnLine SC 994 – relied on.
Shweta Dhingra v. State of H.P. & Ors. (2011) SCC OnLine HP 3566; Malik Mazhar Sultan and Another v. U.P. Public Service Commission and Others (2008) 17 SCC 703; Malik Mazhar Sultan and Another v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and Others (2009)
17 SCC 24; High Court of Kerala v. Reshma A. and Others [2021] 1 SCR 289: (2021) 3 SCC 755; Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Assn. v. State of Gujarat (1994) Supp 2 SCC 591; Hoshiyar Singh v. State of Haryana (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 377; State of Bihar v. Secretariat Asstt. Successful Examinees’ Union [1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 134:(1994) 1 SCC 126; State of Bihar v. Madan Mohan Singh (1994) Supp 3 SCC 308; Surinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 538:(1997) 8 SCC 488; Rakhi Ray & Ors. v. High Court of Delhi & Ors. [2010] 2 SCR 239:(2010) 2 SCC 637 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
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.