LexARUP DAS & ORS. versus STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 445 ARUP DAS & ORS. v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. (Special Leave Petition (C) No.4813-14 of 21}12) JANUARY 27, 2012 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] SERVICE LAW: A B Appointment - Government's refusal to approve the c subsequent selection lists recommending the candidates over and above the number of vacancies advertised - Held: It is we/I-established that an authority cannot make any selection/ appointment beyond the number of posts advertised, even if there were a larger number of posts available than those 0 advertised - A fresh advertisement is required to be published for filling up the remaining number of vacancies after the vacancies advertised are filled up - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 14 and 16. Consequent upon an advertisement published by E the Director of Land Records and Survey, Assam inviting applications for selection and admission in the Assam Survey and Settlement Training Institute in respect of 160 seats, a select list of 160 candidates was published and they were sent for training. Thereafter, ·the government F refused to approve subsequent three more lists. This was challenged before the High Court. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench of the High Court declined to interfere. In the instant petitions, the question for consideration before the Court was: whether appointments could be made in Government service beyond the number of vacancies advertised. 445 G H 446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R. A Dismissing the special leave petitions, the Court HELD: 1. It is well-established that an authority cannot make any selection/appointment beyond the number of posts advertised, even if there were a larger 8 number of posts available than those advertised. The principle behind the said decision is that if that was allowed to be done, such action would be entirely arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, since other candidates who had chosen not to apply for the vacant posts which were being sought C to be filled, could have also applied if they had known that the other vacancies would also be under consideration for being filled up. [Para 1 O] [453-D-F] State of U.P. Vs. Raj Kumar Sharma 2006 (2) SCR 877 D = (2006) 3 SCC 330 : and Madan Lal Vs. State of J&K 1995 (1) SCR 908 ·(1995) 3 sec 486 • relied on. Prem Singh & Ors. Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors. 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 401 = (1996) 4 sec 319 - E explained. Union of India Vs. /shwar Singh Khatri & Ors. (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 84 - distinguished 1.2. No extra-ordinary and/or exceptional F circumstances exist in the instant case requiring the filling up of the vacant seats available after filling up the 160 seats advertised. A fresh advertisement is required to be published for filling up the remaining number of vacancies after the vacancies advertised are filled up. G [Para 12] [455-C·E·F] Case Law Reference: (1992) Supp. 3 sec 84 distinguished Para 4 H 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 401 distinguished Para ·t; ARUP DAS & ORS. v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. 447 1995 (1) SCR 908 2006 (2) SCR 877 relied on relied on Para 7 Para 11 CIYILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Civil) No. 4813- 4814 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 16.09.2011 of the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati in Writ Appeal No. 132 and 151 of2011. A B Jaydeep Gupta, Helal Uddin Chaudhary, Mohd. lrshad Hanif, Adeel Siddiqui for the Petitioners. C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. A short but interesting question of law arises in these Special Leave Petitions, as to whether D appointments can be made in Government service beyond the number of vacancies advertised. 2. An advertisement dated 4th November, 2006, was published by the Director of Land Records and Survey, Assam, inviting applications for selection for admission in the Assam E Survey and Settlement Training Institute in respect of 160 seats. About 12,000 candidates applied for the said advertised seats and a written test was conducted which was followed by a viva voce examination. The viva voce test was limited to only 560 candidates. The restriction of the vive voce test to only 560 F candidates was challenged before the Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C)No.3419 of 2007, which was dismissed and Writ Appeal No.413 of 2007 preferred from the Order of the learned Single Judge was also dismissed. The Director of Land
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.