LexJATINDER KUMAR & ORS versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• ' , JATINDER KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS . September 28, 1984 [D. A. DESAI, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND R. B. MISRA, JJ.] Right to be appointed to posts for which one was selected and recommended by the Subordinate Service Selection Board, nature of-Whether selection for the purpose of recruitment against anticipated vaconcies create an enforceable right by ' Writ of Mandamus--Whether non-appointment on the ground of non-existence of . ,ost amount to malafides and in violation of Articles 14and16 of the Constitution 11nd the principles of Promissory Estoppel-Constitution of India 1950, Article 320(3): whe1her mandatory or directory. I Pursuant to a requisition of the Inspector General of Police Punjab-to select and recommend suitable persons for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police against 57 available_ vacancies and 170 anticipated vacancies likely to occur as a result of expected re-organisatiOn of the Police Force by disband- ment of the Punjab Armed Police Battalion, the appellant atongwith many others were interviewed and pbysicaUy tested on various dates and the Board recom· mended panel of 144 candidates on 22nd December, 1979. The proposal for dis· bandment of the Punjab Armed Police Battalion and creation instead of ad.Ji ... _ tionat posts in the Districts was turned down by the Government with the result , that there were only 57 posts out of which 9 were offered to the wards of the deceased Police Officers in accordance with the Punjab Government Instructions regarding priority appointments issued vide the 1etler No. 80(GOI}-SII(3)/73/ 12092 dated 18th April, l973 and the remaining 48 posts were offered to the can ... didates recommended by the Board in order of merit determined by the Board. Since remaining candidates ~ecommended by-the Board pursuai;it to the requisi- tion against anticipated vacancies were not appointed as there were no vacancies:, the disgruntled candidates filed two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitu- tion before the High Court. The petitions h'lving been dismb:sed, two appeals were prcrcrrcd under the Letters Patent which were also dismissed. Hence the appeals by Special Leave. Dismissing the appcats, the Court HELD : 1. The fact that there is no prevision in the Constitution which makes the acceptance of the advice tendered by the Public Service Commission ~1 when consulted, obligatory renders the provisions of Article 320(3) cnly direc- tory and not mandatory. (905 El A .B c D E F l. The establishment of an independent body like Public Service Com~ G mission is to en1ure selection of best available ·persons for appointment to the post to avoid arbitrariness ud nepotism in the matter of appoiatmca.t. The 1clecti011 by tho Commis1ion, llownor, ia only a ncommcndatioa o!U.. Com· 900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [198Sj 1 s.c.1.t A mission and "the final allthority for appointment is lhe Government. The Government may accept the recommendation or moy decline to accept the sa1ne. But if it chooses not to accept the recommendations of the Commission the Constitution enjoins the Government ·to place on the table of the Legislative Assembly its reason and report for ·doing so. Thus the Government is made answerable to the House for any departure vi de Article 323 of the Constitution. This, however, does not clothe the appellants with any such right in the instant B case. They cannot claim as of right that the Government must accept the recom- n1endation of the Commission. If, however, the vacancy is to be filled up, the Government has to n1ake appointment strictly adhering to the order 1nerit as recommended by the Public Service Con1mission, it cannot disturb the order of merit according to its own sweet-will except for other good reasons namely bad conduct or character. The Government cannot appoint person whose name does not appear in the list. But it is open to the Government to decide how many appointments \vill be made. The process for selection and selection for the pur- C pose of recruitment against anticipated vacancies does not create a right to be appointed to the post \vhich can be enforced by a Mandamus. [905 F-H;906 A-D] D E F G A.N.D.' Silva v. Union of India, [1962] Supp 1 S.C.R. 968; State of Har- yana v. Suba1h Chand~r Marwaha & Ors., [1974] 1 SCR 165; applied. G.S. Kalka! v. State of Punjab & Or.,. (Punjah and l-Iaryana) decided on 15th July, 1980; held inapplicable. 3:1. The al
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.