HAVILDAR CLERK HANS RAJ SHARMA ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 339 · Decided: 09-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI, A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

HA VILDAR CLERK HANS RAJ SHARMA ETC. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INPIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 9, 1994 
B 
[R.M. SARAI AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Anned Forced Medical Services-Selection and appointment-Per-
manent Commission-Anny Instructions-Alteration of selection proce-
C 
dure-Applicability to earlier year's quota-Held not applicable-Directions 
issued to allow pennanent commission to the two selectees of 1986 quota but 
were not given pennanent Commission due to change in procedure. 
The appellants who are serving as Havildar Clerks in the Army D 
Medical Corps applied for grant of Permanent Commission. They ap-
peared before the Service Selection Board which found them suitable to be 
appointed and placed them 4th and 5th in the merit list. The recommen-
dation was forwarded to the Director General, Armed Forces Medical 
Services (DGAFMS) for 'final selection' upto the required number. Sub-
sequently, the DGAFMS issued a letter by which the eligibility was strictly E 
based on merit depending on the performance of the candidates before the 
Board, and the number of chances would be restricted to six only. By a 
subsequent letter the eligibility of the candidates was further made subject 
to their performance before the Board followed by selection interview by 
the Board as constituted by DGAFMS. In pursuance. of the amended F 
eligibility criteria the appellants along with others were required to under-
go personality test in which candidates who were lower in order of merit 
were selected. Against this the appellants approached the High Court but 
were not successful. Hence this appeal. 
The appellants contended that in vi~ of the vigorous selection held G 
by the Board the expression 'final selection' in the Army Instructions 
should be read and understood as issuing of the appointment Jetter upto · 
the required number; and that the power of 'final selection' is given to the 
Director General because the vacancies are not notified and the knowledge 
of the required number is always within his knowledge. 
H 
339 
A 
B 
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
The respondents contended that the language used in the Army 
Instructions leave no scope for argument that the selection made by the 
Board was final; and that competency and efficiency being the hall mark 
of the army selection, not only physical test, but also personality test which 
makes a person suitable for the job of Permanent Commission, was 
necessary. 
Allowing the appeal, this· Court 
HELD : 1. Since the Department till 1987 adopted the practice of 
appointing candidates in order of merit on the recommendation made by 
the Board, and the procedure was altered from May 1987 which .did not 
C apply to 1986 quota the respondents were not justified is not following the 
recommendation in the case of appellants and denying them Permanent 
Commission to which they were entitled by virtue of their selection. [344-G] 
2. Since ·admittedly at least till 1987 the practice by the Department 
D was that the candidates who are recommended by the Board were not 
subjected to any interview and were appointed straightway by the Director 
General in accordance with the merit as determined by the Board, it is not 
necessary to decide the question of law raised on behalf of the appellants 
that the Army 'instructions issued in 1976 contemplated only one selection 
E 
or that the Army Instruction 69/76 amended from 1987 would apply to 
future selections only. [344-E-F] 
F 
3. The respondents are directed to allow ~ermanent Commission in 
Army Medical Corps (Non~Technical) to the appellants from the date it 
was granted to other candidates selected for 1986 quota. The appellants 
shall be entitled notionally to all consequential benefits including promo-
tion and seniority, except the payment of back wages. It is, however, made 
clear that while determining seniority of the appellants the seniority or 
promotion given to any selected candidate who is already working on a 
promotional post shall not be disturbed. [344-H; 345-A-B] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2563 of 
1988 etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.1.88 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.W. No. 3467 of 1987. 
H 
Govind Mukhoty, N.N. Gupta, Randhir Jafu and S.K. Bhatacharya 
... 
H.R SHARMA v. U.0.1 
341 
for the Appellants. 
A 
N.N. Goswami and Ms. Indra Sahni for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The question that arises for consideration

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