SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS HIGH COURT JUDGMENT: NO ARBITRARY DENIAL OF APPOINTMENT IN JUDICIAL SERVICE RECRUITMENT
Category: JUDGEMENT REVIEW
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
Facts of the case -
On May 18, 2010, in the common judgement and order dated, which had been passed by the division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the appellant, Sudesh Kumar Goyal, impugned 12 writ petitions. These included writ petition No. 16211 of 2009, which challenged the selection and appointment of officers into the Haryana Superior Judicial Service by direct recruitment from Bar as per the notification issued on May 18, 2007. Twenty-two vacancies were advertised under that notification: fourteen for the general category, five for the scheduled caste, and three for the backward class. Although he qualified for the written examination as well as the interview, securing fourteen positions on the merit list, he was still not appointed. He objected to a vacancy being kept unfilled without any rational reason and urged his appointment, particularly after one appointee resigned.
Legal provisions -
1. Article 142 of the Indian Constitution: The court cited this article with reference to orders passed for complete justice, among others, as per Brij Mohan Lal (2).
2. Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47: This case established that selection for a post does not create an imperishable right to appointment, but the state cannot act arbitrarily in not filling the posts.
3. Brij Mohan Lal (1) v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 1 and Brij Mohan Lal (2) v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 502: These cases provided the framework for the absorption of Fast Track Court judges into regular posts in the higher judicial service.
Contentions of the Appellant -
The appellant submitted that the decision of the state not to fill the 14th general category post was arbitrary and violated his right to be appointed. He cited Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47, stating that selection does not lead to an absolute right to appointment, but it cannot be negated by fanciful actions either. Further, he argued that he should have been accommodated against the vacancy caused by the resignation of one of those initially appointed.
Contentions of the Respondents -
According to the respondents, there were 22 posts advertised, out of which only 14 were meant for the general category. However, due to a directive from the Haryana High Court, five general category seats were consumed by Additional District and Sessions Judges (Fast Track Court), therefore reducing direct recruitment vacancies to nine only. Thereafter, four more general category posts became vacant, making a total of thirteen candidates, who were appointed accordingly. The respondents insisted that they had acted under directives from the Supreme Court on the absorption of Fast Track Court judges, as stated in Brij Mohan Lal (1) and Brij Mohan Lal (2); hence, no element of arbitrariness was involved in their decision-making process.
Court Analysis and Judgement -
It was held by the Supreme Court through Justice Pankaj Mithal that the Fast Track Court Judge appointments had been carried out in conformity with the Supreme Court’s directions in Brij Mohan Lal (1) and Brij Mohan Lal (2). The actions of the state government were neither arbitrary nor capricious but were based on a reasonable and rational process. It was also rejected that the appellant could have been adjusted against the vacancy caused by resignation because such a vacancy would require a fresh advertisement and selection process.
Further, it was pointed out that the selection process initiated in 2007 cannot remain open indefinitely, as a delay of 16 years is too much to make appointments now on its basis. The result is that an appeal, therefore, fails and stands dismissed, confirming the judgement of the High Court.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: SAILAB KASHYAP
GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
