K. SHEKAR versus V. INDIRAMMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 86 · Decided: 27-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K. SHEKAR 
v. 
V. INDIRAMMA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 27, 2002 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Appointment-Advertisement issued for the post of Assistant Professor-
C Indian Council of Medical Research Centre in National Institute of Mental 
Health and Neuro Sciences-Selection Committee recommended appointment 
to the post of Lecturer on temporary basis-Corrigendum making provisions 
to c~ange the nature of post to permanent and enabling the reversion of the 
appointed candidate-Appointment challenged-High Court set aside the 
D appointment-On appeal Held: Selection Commitee 's recomm~ndation for a 
lower post against an unadvertised post based on power to relax the eligibility 
criteria-Amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of 
'I"" 
India since the power cannot be exercised to do away with the criteria 
altogether-Thus, the High Court was right setting aside the appointment of 
the candidate for the post of Lecturer-Constitution of India. Articles 14 and 
E 16. 
In 1984, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) set up its centres 
in major institutions and medical colleges for developing advance research. 
One such Centre was set up at National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro. 
Sciences (NIMHANS). In September 1986, NIMHANS issued an 
F advertisement to fill up the post of Assistant Professor of Psychiatric Social 
Work and others in the ICMR Centre for a period of 3 years, with a 
stipulation that some posts were likely to be made permanent after 3 years. 
It was also stipulated that if a suitable candidate is not found, the Selection 
Commitee could recommend a candidate for a lower post. Selection 
G Committee did not appoint appellant as Assistant Professor but appointed 
him as a Lecturer in Psychiatric Social Work. In December 1986, another 
advertisement was issued for appointment of Lecturer in the ICMR Centre 
at NIMHANS. The post was not filled up as it was reserved for a Scheduled 
Caste and no SC candidate was found suitable. 
H 
In the meanwhile, ICMR Centre Head at NIMHANS informed the 
86 
K. SHEKAR v. V. INDIRAMMA 
87 
·Director NIMHANS that an agreement existed between ICMR and A 
NIMHANS to absorb the faculty posts; and it would be appropriate to modify 
the appointment orders issued earlier. It was agreed by NIMHANS and 
accordingly Corrigendum to the order of appointment was issued. 
Consequently, the post of Lecturer was made permanent on completion of 
tenure appointment in the Centre and the appellant-appointee was allowed B 
to revert back to the services at NIMHANS with the benefit that the services 
rendered at ICMR Centre would be counted for the purpose of seniority in 
NIMHANS. 
In November, 1989 consequent upon approval by the Govt. of Faculty 
Improvement Programme and redesignation of posts, the post of the appellant 
• 
.... 
c 
was redesignated. as Assistant Professor on 1.10.1986 with NIMHANS 
although appellant continued to serve in the ICMR Centre. 
In June 1989, another advertisement was issued by NIMHANS for filling 
up the posts of Assistant Professor and Lecturer in Psychiatric Social Work. 
ICMR Centre at NIMHANS wound up and appellant was appointed as D 
Assistant Professor (Psychiatric Social Work) at NIMHANS in 1990. 
w 
Respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition challenging the appointment of appellant 
' 
as Assistant Professor in NIMHANS. Single Judge held the appointment of 
the appellant as Lecturer invalid as the said post has not been advertised and 
that Selection Committee was not entitled to either create a new post which 
E 
had not been advertised or to consider an ineligible candidates for the post 
advertised. On appeals by NIMHANS and the appellant, Division Bench 
upheld the finding of Single Judge. Hence these appeals. 
It was contended for the appellant and NIMHANS that Respondent No. 
I did not have locus standi to challenge the appointment of appellant as F 
Lecturer and that Respondent No. I had not challenged the appointment but 
corrigendum to the appointment order; and that the matter should be 
considered from an equitable point of view as his service, since his appointment 
in 1986, would be nulified if his appointment was set aside. 
On behalf of Respondent No. I, it was contended that the process of G 
appointment of appellant as Assistant Professor was vitiated by fraud and 
bias starting with his irregular initial appointment in 1986 and culminating 
with his r~ruitment by absorption; and that the

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