Read Time: 06 minutes
"We are of the opinion that the respondents have justified the appointments and have not acted in an arbitrary manner. The respondents have acted fairly and logically without any malice against the appellant....Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court is not liable to be disturbed, more particularly when the appellant has not acquired any indefeasible right to be appointed because he qualified in the selection process," the bench said
The Supreme Court has held that a State is not obliged to fill up all the vacancies if the rules do not mandate it and no candidate acquires indefeasible right to get appointed after qualifying the selection process.
With this view, it has dismissed an appeal against denial of appointment to a man to the post of Additional District Judge in Haryana despite figuring in the final selection list.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal dismissed the plea by Sudesh Kumar Goyal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's 2010 judgement declining him any relief.
The grievance of the appellant was that despite having successfully qualified the written examination and the interview and having secured the 14th position in the merit list, he was not appointed in the selection/recruitment of 22 officers in the Haryana Superior Judicial Service in the process initiated in 2007.
He contended the first 13 candidates in order of merit were appointed and out of those 13, one candidate resigned after joining the service.
He further contended his right for appointment cannot be defeated by adopting an arbitrary approach.
The bench, however, said, "The relevant rules of 2007, do not oblige the State to fill up all the vacancies advertised."
The court also noted, of the 22 posts advertised for direct recruitment in the higher judicial service, 14 were meant to be filled up by general category candidates but only 13 selected general category candidates were appointed. The reason was five general category candidates who were working as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haryana were absorbed as per recommendation of a committee formed following the direction in a writ petition.
Of the 14 general category posts, 5 officers of the Fast Track Court were adjusted, thus leaving only 9 to be filled up as per selection. In the meantime, 20 fresh vacancies of the cadre became available, out of which, 5 were to be filled up by direct recruitment from the Bar, (4 general category and 1 Scheduled Caste category). Therefore, a conscious decision was taken to add these 4 general category vacancies to the already advertised vacancies, thus making the number of general category vacancies to be 13 [14-5=9+4=13]. Thus, only 13 candidates were appointed.
With regard to the appellant's contention that he could have been easily adjusted against the vacancy caused due to resignation of one of the selected candidates, the bench said the argument per se is bereft of merit inasmuch as all the vacancies notified stood filled up initially.
"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," the bench said.
The court declined to interfere with the HC's order, also noting the process of recruitment was started in 2007, and 16 years have passed by in between.
"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," the bench said.
Case Title: SUDESH KUMAR GOYAL vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Please Login or Register
