Case Note & Summary
The case involves a long-standing dispute over the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Executive) in Jammu and Kashmir pursuant to an advertisement dated 25th February 1999. The initial selection was challenged on the ground that the merit list was prepared Province-wise (Jammu and Kashmir separately) instead of State-wise, as the post is a State cadre post. The High Court initially directed a State-wise merit list, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. In compliance, a redrawn State-wise merit list was published on 19th May 2004, resulting in the ouster of 47 candidates who had been appointed earlier. These ousted candidates approached the courts, and in a Supreme Court order dated 10th May 2007, the Advocate General of the State conceded to accommodate all 47 ousted candidates and 22 others. Pursuant to this concession, the State appointed 22 candidates who were lower in the redrawn merit list, while ignoring candidates who were higher in the merit list. The higher-ranked candidates filed writ petitions in 2008, which were allowed by the Single Judge but dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 12th March 2013, relying on the Supreme Court's order. The Supreme Court, in the present appeal, held that the concession by the Advocate General could not override the statutory recruitment rules and the fundamental right to equality under Article 14. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the State to consider the appellants for appointment as Sub-Inspectors in accordance with their merit position, without disturbing the appointments already made.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Merit List - State Cadre Post - The post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Executive) in J&K is a State cadre post, and the merit list must be prepared State-wise, not Province-wise, as per the J&K Police (Executive) Rules. The Division Bench of the High Court had earlier directed redrawing of the merit list State-wise, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. (Paras 2-5)
B) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Equality in Public Employment - Candidates higher in the merit list have a fundamental right to fair consideration for appointment. Appointments made in violation of the merit list, even pursuant to a concession by the Advocate General, cannot override this right. (Paras 10-14, 18-20)
C) Constitutional Law - Article 142 - Scope - The Supreme Court's order dated 10th May, 2007, which recorded the concession of the Advocate General to accommodate certain candidates, was not a determination of legal rights and cannot be used to justify appointments that violate statutory rules and the rights of others. (Paras 13, 18-20)
D) Service Law - Recruitment - Delay and Laches - The appellants, who were higher in the merit list, were not guilty of delay or laches as they challenged the appointments of the 22 candidates soon after they were made in 2008. (Paras 15, 21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of 22 candidates who were lower in the merit list, made pursuant to a concession by the Advocate General recorded in the Supreme Court's order dated 10th May, 2007, can deprive the legitimate claim of candidates higher in the merit list from seeking appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 12th March 2013, and directed the State to consider the appellants for appointment as Sub-Inspectors of Police in accordance with their merit position in the redrawn merit list, without disturbing the appointments already made. The Court held that the concession by the Advocate General could not override the statutory recruitment rules and the fundamental right to equality under Article 14.
Law Points
- Statutory recruitment rules cannot be overridden by concession of Advocate General
- Right to equality in public employment under Article 14
- Doctrine of legitimate expectation
- Scope of Article 142 of the Constitution
Case Details
2020 LawText (SC) (12) 22
Civil Appeal No(s). 3904-3905 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 20553-20554 of 2013) and connected appeals
Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, learned Senior counsel for the appellants; Mr. Altaf H. Nayak, learned Advocate General (mentioned in order dated 10th May, 2007)
Pankjeshwar Sharma and Others
State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissing writ petitions challenging appointments made below the merit list.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought setting aside of the High Court's judgment and a direction to the State to consider them for appointment as Sub-Inspectors of Police based on their higher merit position.
Filing Reason
The appellants, who were higher in the redrawn State-wise merit list, were denied appointment while 22 candidates lower in the merit list were appointed pursuant to a concession by the Advocate General recorded in the Supreme Court's order dated 10th May, 2007.
Previous Decisions
The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions on 26th August 2010, but the Division Bench set aside that judgment on 12th March 2013, relying on the Supreme Court's order dated 10th May 2007.
Issues
Whether the appointment of 22 candidates lower in the merit list, made pursuant to a concession by the Advocate General, can deprive the legitimate claim of candidates higher in the merit list?
Whether the Supreme Court's order dated 10th May 2007, recording the concession, bars the appellants from challenging the appointments?
Whether the appellants are guilty of delay and laches?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants: The order dated 10th May 2007 merely recorded the concession and did not determine legal rights; the appointments violated statutory rules and Article 14; there was no delay as they challenged the appointments soon after they were made in 2008.
Respondents: The appointments were made in compliance with the Supreme Court's order under Article 142; the appellants are guilty of delay and laches.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that a concession made by the Advocate General and recorded in a court order cannot override statutory recruitment rules and the fundamental right to equality under Article 14. Candidates higher in the merit list have a legitimate right to fair consideration for appointment, and appointments made in violation of the merit list are unsustainable. The order dated 10th May 2007 did not determine legal rights and could not be used to justify such violations.
Judgment Excerpts
The order of this Court dated 10th May, 2007 merely recorded the concession made by the learned Advocate General of the State and it has been completely misconstrued by the Division Bench of the High Court in holding that as the order has been passed by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, it is not open to question in the collateral proceedings.
By appointing such 22 persons as SubInspectors who had been nowhere in the redrawn merit list prepared pursuant to an advertisement dated 25th February, 1999, at least right of the appellants of fair consideration in seeking appointment who admittedly placed higher in the order of redrawn merit list could not have been divested in taking defence to the order of this Court dated 10th May, 2007.
Procedural History
The selection process began with an advertisement on 25th February 1999. The initial Province-wise merit list was challenged in SWP No.567/2000, which was allowed by the Single Judge on 16th October 2000. The Division Bench modified the order on 19th August 2002, directing a State-wise merit list. This was upheld by the Supreme Court on 10th February 2004. A redrawn State-wise merit list was published on 19th May 2004, ousting 47 candidates. Those ousted candidates filed writ petitions and contempt proceedings. The Supreme Court, on 10th May 2007, recorded the Advocate General's concession to accommodate all ousted candidates and 22 others. Pursuant to this, the State appointed 22 candidates lower in the merit list in 2008. Higher-ranked candidates filed SWP No.1084/2008 and SWP No.1145/2008, which were allowed by the Single Judge on 26th August 2010. The Division Bench set aside this order on 12th March 2013, leading to the present appeals.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 142
- J&K Police (Executive) Rules:
