KHUBRAM versus DALBIR SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 5 S.C.R. 350 · Decided: 29-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 350 
KHUBRAM 
v. 
DALBIR SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2734 of 2012) 
APRIL 29, 2015 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND 
C 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Service law: Appointment- Post of Chief Inspector in 
Haryana Roadways - KR appointed - DS challenged 
appointment of KR- Writ petition allowed on the ground that 
o KR did not meet experience certificate -Appointment of KR 
quashed - Direction to appoint DS from retrospective effect 
- MP challenged the said decision on the ground that he 
was one amongst the selected candidates and has better 
claim for appointment than OS and therefore, MP should be 
E appointed in place of OS - Held: The appellant-KR is not 
entitled to hold the office which he obtained by submitting 
questionable certificates of experience and more so when 
he lacked the essential qualification of requisite working 
experience - As regard OS, he was only an applicant and 
F was not among the selected 14 candidates - In that view of 
the matter, High Court was misled to issue a direction for his 
appointment and that too from an earlier date when KR was 
appointed, and with consequential benefits- Such directions 
G could not have been issued without considering the claims 
of other persons in the Select List - For that reason, the 
directions issued in favour of DS set aside - However, the 
other prayer made on behalf of MP that authorities be directed 
to offer him appointment or consider his claim cannot be 
H allowed on account of the fact that writ petition of MP filed in 
350 
KHUB RAM v. DALBIR SINGH & ORS. 
351 
1991 was decided against him and had attained finality-
A 
His claim thus suffered from res judicata as well as 
acquiescence and estoppel - In that view of the matter and 
also for the reason that a long period of more than 25 years 
has passed since the preparation of the Select List, no relief 
can be granted - However in view of inaction of the State B 
Government after becoming aware that KR lacked essential 
qualification and obtained job by fraud, State is directed to 
pay compensation of Rs.3 lacs to MP and further deposit 
Rs.1 lac with Mediation Centre - Compensation. 
c 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. KR is not entitled to hold the office which 
he obtained by submitting questionable certificates of 
experience and more so when he lacked the essential D 
qualification of working experience in a Government/ 
Semi-government/Public Sector Undertaking. MP has 
shown from the pleadings that while he was at serial no.9 
of the Select List containing 14 names prepared for 
appointment to 5 advertised posts, first respondent-OS E 
did not find any place in such Select List. This fact 
escaped the attention of Single Judge as well as Division 
Bench possibly because there was no rival claimant to 
point out such shortcoming in the case of writ petitioner-
F 
OS. There is no dispute that first respondent-OS was 
only an applicant and was not among the selected 14 
candidates. In that view of the matter, the High Court 
was misled to issue a direction for his appointment and 
that too from an earlier date when KR was appointed, G 
and with consequential benefits. Such directions could 
not have been issued without considering the claims of 
other persons in the Select List. For that reason, the 
directions issued in favour of first respondent are set 
H 
352 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201515 S.C.R. 
A aside. To that extent, appeal of MP has to be allowed. 
However, the other prayer made on behalf of MP that 
authorities be directed to offer him appointment or 
consider his claim cannot be allowed on account of the 
fact that writ petition of MP filed in 1991 was decided 
B against him. Rightly or wrongly, the High Court held that 
he could not claim any right of appointment on account 
of a place in the Select List. That judgment attained 
finality. MP chose not to appeal against that order nor 
C he challenged the appointment of any of the persons 
selected and appointed. His claim thus suffered from 
res judicata as well as acquiescence and estoppel. In 
that view of the matter and also for the reason that a long 
period of more than 25 years has passed since the 
D preparation of the Select List, it would be inappropriate 
to grant any relief which may require the authorities to 
examine the claim of persons in the Select List for 
appointment to the original post which may not even be 
available after lapse of so many years. MP is presentl

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