DR. (MRS.) CHANCHAL GOYAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 112 · Decided: 18-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DR. (MRS.) CHANCHAL GOYAL 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
FEBRUARY 18, 2003 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959; Section 308/Rajasthan Municipal 
C Service Rules, 1963; Rules 26 & 27: 
Temporary appointment of a Lady Doctor till regular incumbent selected 
by the Public Service Commission joins-Extension of service for quite a long 
period and termination thereafter-Challenged in High Court-Single Judge 
D held termination illegal and directed regularisation-However, Division Bench 
held termination of service proper-On appeal, Held: Since Service 
Commission's concurrence was not obtained in extending services of the 
incumbent from time to time, presumption as to concurrence cannot be drawn-
Hence currency of appointment lost-Non-joining of candidate selected by 
Service Commission does not confer any right on the incumbent, since another 
E selected candidate could be posted. 
Administrative Law: 
Principle of Legitimate expectation-Applicability of-Discussed. 
F 
Appellant was appointed as Lady Doctor in the Municipal Council, 
Ganganagar, Rajasthan, initially for a period of six months or till the 
regular incumbent selected by Public Service Commission joined. 
However, she was continued in service for about fourteen years when her 
services were terminated as candidate selected by the Service Commission 
was available to join duty. In the writ petition, Single Judge of the High 
G Court directed regularisation of services of the incumbent with all benefits. 
However, Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal of the State 
and upheld the termination order. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that in view of long period of 
service rendered by the appellant, it had assumed permanency; that the 
H 
I 12 
--· 
DR. (MRS.)CHANCHALGOYALv. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
113 
principles of legitimate expectation are squarely applicable in the facts and A 
circumstances of the case; and that since the appellant was allowed to 
participate in the Gratuity and Pension Fund Benefits Scheme, retrial 
benefits cannot be denied. 
It was submitted for the respondent that since appellant's 
appointment was on temporary basis and conditional, she cannot take B 
advantage of the fortuitous circumstances of continuance in service for a 
long period. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. There is no scope of regularization unless the C 
appointment was on regular basis; the plea that even for temporary 
appointment there was a selection, is really of no consequence; the plea 
that presumption of the Service Commission's concurrence can be drawn 
is without any substance. There is no scope for drawing a presumption 
about such concurrence in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. [118-F, G) 
D 
Delhi Rated Casual Labour employed under P&T Department through 
Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India and Ors., [1988) 1 SCC 
122; Narender Chadha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1986) 2 SCC 
157; State of Haryana and Anr. v. Ram Diya, (1990) 2 SCR 431 and State of 
U.P. and Ors. v. Dr. Deep Narain Tripathi and Ors., (1996) 8 SCC 454, E 
distinguished. 
1.2. A. candidate selected by the Service Commission was to replace 
the appellant. If selected candidate did not join, that is really of no 
assistance to the appellant. Obviously another selected person can be 
posted. Non-joining of the selected candidate does not confer any right F 
on the appellant. As the initial order shows what is required is the 
availability of a candidate selected by the Service Commission, and not 
the joining of the selected candidate. (119-C, DJ 
J & K Publi()ervice Commission and Ors. v. Dr. Narinder Mohan and G 
Ors., (19941 2 SCC 630 and Union of India and Ors. v. Harish Balkrishna 
Mahaian, (1997) 3 SCC 194, relied on. 
1.3. According to the principle of 'legitimate expectation', if the 
authority proposed to defeat a person's legitimate expectation, it should 
afford him an opportunity to make a representation in the matter. The H 
114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A principle of 'legitimate expectation' is at the root of the rule of law and 
requires regularity, predictability and certainty in governments' dealings 
with the public. The principle of a substantive legitimate expectation, that 
is, expectation of favourable decision of one kind or another, has been 
accepted as part of the English Law in several. cases. It has been held under 
En

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.